Agenda item

7.1

Elective Home Education

7.1.1

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, People Services, containing a summary of the Elective Home Education Service, and setting out statistical information in terms of the numbers of users of, and the reasons why families were opting to use, the Service. 

7.1.2

Venetta Buchanan (Advisory Teacher for Elective Home Education) introduced the report, and also in attendance for this item was Alena Prentice (Assistant Director, Inclusion and Learning Services).

7.1.3

Members of the Committee raised questions, and the following responses were provided:-

·             Officers met with as many families as possible who had applied to educate their children at home, to discuss what was needed to be put in place.  Additional support for families was available, if required, in the form of training and provision of help and advice.

·             The progress of all children not accessing school in the standard manner was tracked and monitored by the Authority.  This included children moving into the City, and looking for a school place, as well as looked after children.

·             In terms of those pupils who had been educated at home, and for whatever reason, wished to return to school, support in connection with the transition was provided by the Local Authority, as well as a number of other agencies, including Multi Agency Support Teams (MAST).  Headteachers were very co-operative in this regard, and there was an agreement with them that if the arrangements did not work out for whatever reason, within a 12-week period, arrangements would be made for them to return to school.

·             Officers would be happy to provide details of a number of case studies regarding families who had opted to educate their children at home, in a future report to the Committee.

·             In terms of outcomes, although many children educated at home opted to take exams, they were not required to do so.  The Authority worked closely with Sheffield Futures in terms of post-16 options, although Sheffield Futures was not obliged to share any information regarding outcomes with the Authority.

·             The Authority had a duty to ensure that parents educating their children at home provided a suitable and efficient education, with plenty of variety.  There was no formal framework for the ongoing monitoring of the children. 

·             The vast majority of children who had left school to be educated at home returned to school within six months, for a variety of reasons. This resulted in there being no big gaps in terms of their education, and also meant that their re-integration into school was not deemed a major issue. 

·             The Authority was obliged to accept all applications for elective home education, and officers would meet with parents, as part of the application process, to discuss their reasons for taking this option.

·             The Authority wanted to see all children receive a suitable education, therefore would try to provide support for those families opting to have their children educated at home.  If parents were not willing to accept the Authority’s support, and/or the Authority had any concerns in terms of the standards of education being provided, it would look to make sure that arrangements were in place for the child to go back to school as quickly as possible.

·             It would not be possible for the Authority to give any assurances that the number of children being educated at home would decrease.  The Authority’s target was simply to ensure that every child received a suitable education.

·             Information in terms of children returning back to school, after having been educated at home, particularly with regard to their ability to mix socially with other children, would be provided as part of the case studies.

·             The Authority was not able to instruct parents to offer specific types of education simply based on their reasons to home educate their children.  Provision could only be assessed when they met families.

·             Parents were required to provide written information with regard to the education they were providing and, if it was not deemed suitable, taking the experiences and needs of the child into consideration, the families would be referred to the Children Missing Education team, who would assist with a return to school.  When all other steps were exhausted, families were referred to the MAST for a School Attendance Order.

·             No applications for elective home education were refused from the outset.  The parents would be required to apply to the school initially, with the request then being referred for consideration by the Authority, and it was at this stage when a decision was made.  If the Authority had any concerns, such as relating to child protection issues, the issue would be passed on to Social Care.

·             The majority of parents provided extra curricula activities for their children, including sports and arts.  There was also a large network which parents could use to seek help and advice.

·             The Authority was not able to make any presumptions, when parents applied for elective home education in respect of their children, that the education to be provided would not be satisfactory.  It had to place a high level of reliance and trust on the parents in terms of them making the right decision, and for the right reasons.

7.1.4

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the information now reported and the responses to the questions raised; and

(b)      in the light of the concerns and questions raised with regard to the Elective Home Education Service, requests the Executive Director, People Services, to submit a further, more detailed report on the Service, focusing on the issues now raised, particularly quality and safeguarding, and including a number of case studies, to its meeting to be held on 12^th March 2018.

7.2

Alternative Provision

7.2.1

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, People Services, providing an overview of Alternative Provision in Sheffield.

7.2.2

The report was supported by a presentation from Emma Beal (Assistant Director, Lifelong Learning) and also in attendance for this item was John Bigley (Manager, Admissions).

7.2.3

Ms Beal reported on the definitions of Alternative Provision and on the network of Alternative Provision in the City.  She also referred to proposed changes with regard to commissioning arrangements which, subject to the approval of the Cabinet, would result in the network provision being developed in response to both current and future identified needs.

7.2.4

In response to a question, Ms Beal stated that pupils in Alternative Provision remained on the school roll, which was different from those pupils who had been excluded from schools.  The schools valued the provision from the point of view of diversification, despite the fact that the service offered was very expensive.  It was accepted that alternative provision could never be a proxy for school education. 

7.2.5

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the information reported as part of the presentation, and the response to the question raised;

(b)      expresses its thanks to Emma Beal and John Bigley for attending the meeting, and responding to the questions raised; and

(c)   requests that information on the recommissioning of Alternative Provision be included in the wider Special Educational Needs report scheduled for its meeting on 15^th January, 2018.