Agenda item

The report presented the picture in Slough and the national context, and also outlined the contractual and financial arrangements involved. In particular, the absence of a thorough regulatory regime for the issue had made risk management a central concern.

In Slough, there were 121 known examples of home schooled children. These were spread almost equally between primary and secondary schools and included pupils from all years in compulsory education. 6 of these children were subject to Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans, whilst another 6 had active involvement from either social care or early help. The situation in Slough was very much in alignment with the national picture; as with many local authorities, SBC would value more powers to ensure that children were receiving quality education, and a mandatory registration regime to support this.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  The vast majority of parents home schooling their children allowed SBC to undertake visits. In these cases, the first visit would be within 6 weeks of notification of the intention to home school, with subsequent visits being annual. Should the child have special educational needs or a disability, then a SEND specialist would be present at the visit. Home visits did also look at the physical environment and any safeguarding issues. SBC had the right to refer any matters arising to Social Care.

·  The few cases where parents did not allow visits (in Slough, 2 or 3 such instances) generally arose from an unwillingness to engage with authorities.

·  These visits provided detailed reports. These covered the reasons for home schooling being selected by the parents and the support SBC could offer in this.

·  Exact estimation of the number of home schooled children was complicated by the fact that only children being withdrawn from schools needed to notify SBC. Should a child never been registered at a school, SBC had no means of verifying that this child was now being home schooled.

·  SBC did not hold any information on the results of children receiving home schooling. Furthermore, such children were not obliged to take public examinations; so long as they were receiving an education, legal obligations were being met by the parents. However, it was stressed that in 70% of cases visited, provision was satisfactory and some home schooled children did receive good qualifications.

·  The Private Bill proposed by Lord Soley did have cross party support in Parliament. However, it was expected to encounter difficulty in receiving the necessary time in debate to become law; as a result, Government was expected to issue guidance rather than pass legislation on the matter.

·  In approximately half the cases known by SBC, parents stated that they provided home schooling as it was preferable to the alternative. Other reasons given in remaining instances included medical grounds, the children being too young for education in large groups, problems with travel to school, their preferred school not offering a place or being part of the traveller community. Traditionally, the main reason had been well educated parents feeling that they could offer their children a better education that the state provided, but this was changing in recent years.

(At this point, Cllr Chahal joined the meeting).

·  Pupil premiums did not follow the child from the school to the parents should the child have been in receipt of this whilst in mainstream education.

Resolved:  That the report be noted.