Agenda item

The Chairman declared an interest in this item as a provider of alternative education.  The Vice Chairman chaired the meeting for item 8.

The Head of Education and Skills, and the Schools and Settings Effectiveness Lead (Babcock) had been invited to the meeting to provide an update on provision for young people of compulsory school age defined as being 'educated otherwise'.  It was explained that this term referred to learners who were in receipt of alternative provision (including hospital or medical education), and elective home education.

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were raised:

·       It was confirmed that the local authority held a register of all those children who had been de-registered from school and were currently home educated.  The local authority would carry out initial checks to ensure the appropriateness of the curriculum but, beyond this, it had little scope to inspect provision.  This was a significant concern and the Independent Chair of the Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board had recently written to the Department for Education expressing the Board's concern.  The DfE had replied twice to say that it was looking into the issue.  It was acknowledged that the local authority was not able to force parents to allow visits to assess the quality of provision for home educated children.

·       It was confirmed that, in the case of home educated children, the duty to provide learning rested with the parents and the local authority provided a comprehensive set of guidance.

·       A question was asked about who was responsible for checking safety, DBS checks and other safeguarding issues when a school directly commissioned an alternative provider.  It was suggested that these providers were often small local businesses who were looking to diversify, but it was not clear who was responsible for ensuring they met necessary standards.

·       It was confirmed that the local authority held a list of alternative providers which showed where DBS checks had been undertaken.  It was agreed that the list would be shared with the Panel.

·       Concern was expressed that there was currently no Ofsted inspection of alternative providers and it was confirmed that this concern had been raised in the WSCB's letter to the Department for Education.

·       Members were informed that social workers were also aware of the safeguarding risk in relation to home educated children as this was a national issue.  If concerns were raised, a referral to social care could be made and this would include the usual statutory abilities to intervene.

·       Further concern was expressed about those families who never register a child with a school and those who move around regularly.

·       It was confirmed that, where a child had a statement of Special Educational Needs or an Education Health Care Plan and was also home educated, the statement/plan was monitored rigorously.

·       Members were reminded that the local authority had moved away from PRUs to alternative provision schools.  The aim was to get the heads of all the alternative provision schools to work together towards achieving zero exclusions.

·       It was confirmed that 95% of families who home educated had agreed to a home monitoring visit by the local authority.  It was suggested that the remaining 5% of children should be seen as children at risk.  Although the initial home visit provided reassurances and social care also provided a route to protect the child, it was agreed that in some cases there was a gap in what the local authority could do.

·       Members expressed concern about the Council's lack of authority to monitor all children and it was confirmed that the issue had been raised on more than one occasion at the WSCB.  Given current figures the 5% of children in families who had not agreed to a home monitoring visit could represent 12 children who might be seen as the 12 most vulnerable children in the County.