HomeSchooler.org.uk

5:20 Start of meeting; Barry Sheerman (BS) greeted gallery - it's quite full.

BS introduced called on Diana Johnson (DJ) to start

DJ: Cannot refer to monitoring because out to consult; Friday's
document: LAs can claim money for EHEs, SEN first; exam centres for
EHEs; when recommendations implemented, England will still be liberal
on EHE - no NC, no laws against it.

GB: registration, light-touch monitoring; if I were a dir of
Children's Services I would not last long if I did not know about
80,000 in my care. [But EHEs are NOT in his care!!!] Report is
critical of LAs - support for SEN and training of staff. Why did the
children leave school? Tried to represent EHE opinions. Parents
consider EHE a place of last resort. Plus a group of parents with
philosophical belief that they can do ed better. Turn to safeguarding
- initial press coverage was not a good thing. I asked two questions
about safeguarding - are the concerns over-represented? what could be
done about this? Education - need further work on 21C education (what is
suitable and efficient?) and on autonomous education.

Balance rights of children with the rights of parents - tried to give
EHE children and parents a voice; LA forum. Believes EHE holds a
mirror to the school system. Surprised by vociferous minority

Paul Holmes (Chesterfield): Met EHE this summer. Para 8.12 -
disproportionately known to social care. Why known to SC? SEN, e.g.

GB: Understands need for clarity 17 disability; 37 assistance; 47 child
protection. Original data confused - 41 CPP - glitch was argued so he
went back to check - the 41 was double - now understood to be 5X
general population. 1 Oct data - from 74 LAs, there is double
proportion. S47 enquiry only held after assessment and CPP after that.
Figures presented now are only those with CPP.

PH: Are the figures for EHE known to SC only those on CPP?

GB: Yes.

PH: Huge disparities between LAs - How to explain?

GB: Can't - EHE unevenly spread; fewer EHE if schooling satisfactory;
material deprivation. If LAs reflect on why children are dereg, should
also reflect on what they don't know. SCRs - disparity can be
explained by LAs not knowing what they don't know.

PH: What about false reporting? are they in the figures?

GB: S47 enquiries don't occur on the basis of false reporting.

PH: Will data be made available so that EHEs can look at it?

DJ: We are working through the FoIs - huge number.

PH: Put data on web so that EHE can see it w/o FoI.

Penny Jones (PJ): Data from second report is on web.

GB: New data (74) raises more concern. 0.4% of [*known*] EHE
are on CPP and 0.2% in general pop. Should not

Chap on left (CL): If there are twice as many EHE as those known to LAs,
then there are only 0.2% on CPP. [HURRAH!]

GB: If we double EHE, then the numbers are higher. If 0.2% is general
then we remove another 20,000 which reduces the 0.2%...

CL: Rubbish - deal with data as it is. We have no reason to assume
that the unknown are less safe.

GB: repeats "twice the percentage". Will clarify data afterwards.
Second set od data - LAs asked us to raise other concerns: NEETs,
suitable ed.

CL: NEETs in EHE?

GB: In 74 LAs - 1220 16-18s [?] 220 NEETS (22%)

Division Bell - meeting adjourned - Not sure who else is there, but I
see Ann Newstead.

6:10 restart (Chap on left is Graham Stuart (GS))

Annette Brooks (AB): [info from Tania's email] GB, can you
confirm that your data is correct?

GB: Yes - checked by DCSF statistician. BTW, back to GS's question -
we can't be sure that the unknown 50% are safe. My data is correct,
not yours. But we'll send you more data.

BS: EHEers are cross because they want to be judged on education not
on CPP.

DJ: That's right. Govt wants to ensure good ed for children.

BS: I want every child to get a good deal and obviously great
experiences - but also obvious evidence of not good education.

DJ: Agrees.

AB: In favour of simple registration. However, applications - clearcut
to refuse on CP grounds. Right of appeal?

DJ: Yes, any process needs to be fair and consult is on this so I
can't comment. Fairness is key.

AB: Would like to have seen case studies of good EHE in GB's report. I
know of cases where children are removed, e.g. children with ASD,
parents threatened by being judged on some unknown critera for
suitable.

GB: If money flows to LA, then LA can commission other services to
support EHE. Voluntary sector (AiM) can provide better support and
they should be able to draw down the money. It is perverse to cut
children off from resources as soon as they leave school. Most of my
report is about meeting children's needs in EHE.

BS: The problem is that anyone engaged with SS has a stigma. Need
positive relationship in support for EHE, not "inspection".

DJ: That's govt's view. Ned good practice.

AB: Welcome support recommendations. But concerned that parent may
have child who will never fit the round hole of schooling and will
there be flexibility?

GB: the report would not stop that. Trying to say - it is important
for govt to know about every child and

Man on right (MR): Could we drop registration and make obligation to receive
advice?

DJ: Need register in order to be able to plan services.

MR: will there be a sanction for not registration?

DJ: It is out for consultation.

GB: Annual registration is not onerous. There are some bad cases out
there and [quote from Daniel Monk].

MR: This is about the state intervening in the family.

GB: Need changes to guarantee rights of child.

Lynda Waltho (LW): access to child - police need warrant, LAs do not
use current powers. Why do they need new powers?

GB: LA quote - we have no way to safeguard children and be sure that
they meet ECM. No way of knowing they are in country unless we see
child. LAs do not have to use powers. We need to safeguard children. Quote from
Jane Lowe: if you
EHE, it is first and foremost a home. LAs need to respect that.

LW: What if child does not want to meet LA?

GB: Was dreading question. It is up to the sensitivity of the officer
- does the child really want it or are they repeating what the parent
says? Preparing to involve other trusted adults. We are not trying to
prevent good EHE but we are judging each case on its merits and
trusting the good sense of others.

BS: We are going to talk to a group of EHE children.

LW: I am calmed by your response but you're talking a lot about
training. What about resources? This could be a bottomless pit. Is
that another question you don't like?

PJ: Cost of implementation... in full response. Resources have been
earmarked.

David Chaytor (DC): If stats are so difficult to collate, are there no
info on learning outcomes?

DJ: Data is incomplete. EG, GCSE stats would not show.

DC: What about KS2 or GCSE stats would they not show EHE?

PJ: Unless we know about all of them, we do cannot say how
representative they are.

GB: If we extend access to exam cetres we'll get better data. NEETs
data is stark also data in JobCentre+. Do we know enough about the
outcomes? No, not that they don't have any, but that we don't know.
LAs don't know when to intervene

DC: Stmt of intended learning?

DJ: Two sides of A4 per child. Issues with autonomous learning we need
to address. Work to do on this. Also to see what is suitable and
efficient. Stmt not more than a few pages.

GB: Glad it won't be me doing this. Against background of 21C - back
to UN. Understand why autonomous ed say this but child has right to be
part of society. Need broad brush curriculum that gives child choices.
If you don't know about something, how can you have a choice? Harrison
case: Ed demands at least an element of supervision. Leaving child to
work out own course is at best childminding.

DC: Implication is that there should be some general outcomes not per
child.

GB: As someone with 40 years experience, partaking part in society
requires certain knowledge therefore stmt should be definable.

BS: Mixing with peers? Research on quality of outcomes in terms of
citizens?

GB: Not to my knowledge. CoE...

Edward Timpson (ET): EHE despair of system but also because they
believe they can do better. Does stmt not mean that state can regulate
the education as opposed to having freedom, not strait-jacketed by NC,
etc.?

GB: Broad, balanced, relevant, differentiated - from red book. Minister said
that we would
not be constraining like other European countries. Cannot pin down EHE
- enormous variety. Curriculum model would not work. Need a working
group to work it out. We want all children to have achieved something
(football, music, chess, whatever) - have to be able to spell that
out. Cannot leave it laissez-faire.

ET: Light-touch monitoring, light-touch curriculum. Given examples of
countries where it is regulated. How about countries with light touch?

GB: Tasmania. EHE involved in monitoring. UK EHE rejected it. However,
EHEers have an opportunity to shape what is happening to them.

BS: Closed session.

PLEASE NOTE: These were scribbled down by AHED Member Shena. Many thanks to her and note that they are non-edited by either of us!