Present: Cllr. Vanessa Brown, Cllr. Ted Kemble, Dani, Imran, Kate

The meeting was held to discuss the Badman Review of home education, and how the home education community could have an input to Brighton & Hove City Council’s response to the current government consultation.

Dani presented the councillors with a briefing note and a copy of the Badman Review recommendations and the government’s consultation document.

The discussion was friendly and wide-ranging.

Some points that arose were:

Impact of the Badman recommendations on home educating families in Brighton & Hove

Cllr. Brown felt that it was unlikely that the recommendations would be implemented in a heavy-handed way by Brighton & Hove Council staff, and that there was no reason for home educators to be alarmed.

Kate and Dani pointed out that relying on the good will of individual officers would leave home educating families in an uncertain position. Once the powers are in place, they are there for any future administration or staff team.

There may not be much discretion for individual officers or local authorities, in any case. The Review recommends that the government issue statutory guidance, which would presumably determine the way the new powers should be applied.

Monitoring and service provision

Cllr. Brown said that the council was concerned about parents it did not know were home educating. Kate and Imran said that they were not registered with the council’s EOTAS team, as the EOTAS team had no useful services to offer to home educators.

Dani said that the view of officers at Brighton & Hove (in common with Graham Badman, and many other local authorities) was that their job is to inspect and monitor home educators, by means of annual home visits. Even though DCSF guidelines make it clear that there is no duty to monitor, under current legislation, they persist in this role.

Kate said that we have had numerous meetings with officers at the council, right up to Assistant Director level, but have never made any progress towards a more imaginative and respectful relationship between the council and the home education community. Other local authorities provide drop-in centres, free venues for home education group meetings, subsidised access to council owned sports facilities, and exam centres for home educated children who wish to take public exams. When we have asked Brighton & Hove to provide these things, we have been met with a flat refusal.

Cllr. Brown said that her understanding was that most home educating families are happy to accept monitoring visits. Dani and Kate said that this is far from the case. People agree to the visits because they do not want to appear rude and because they are frightened that the local authority officer will put pressure on them to return their child to the school system, or even refer them to social services. Officers may not be aware of this, but the visits they carry out are generally perceived as irritating (at best) or extremely stressful. Some families go to great lengths to avoid becoming known to the local authority – including staying indoors between 9am and 3pm, or even not registering with a GP. This is not because they have something to hide, but because being registered with the local authority is of no value to them, and is experienced as an unwanted intrusion into their lives.

If the local authority were to provide useful and practical services for home educators, this situation could be turned around. However, if the Badman Review proposals go through, there will be no opportunity to do this, and relations between the council and the home education community are likely to worsen.

The requirement to submit a 12 month plan

All the home educators at the meeting expressed concern about this aspect of the proposals. For autonomous home educators, the idea of predicting outcomes for a child 12 months in advance is entirely at odds with the educational philosophy they have chosen.

Dani gave the example of her son, who has recently developed an interest in maps, as a result of reading a series of books. She did not know this would happen, so could not have included it in a 12 month plan for the year. If his interest in maps wanes, she would not want to be putting pressure on him to keep up map-related activities, in order to fit in with targets written now. That would mean abandoning the principle of respecting the child’s internal motivation to learn, which is at the heart of the autonomous education approach.

Kate pointed out that these proposals in effect remove the right of parents who prefer the autonomous approach on educational and philosophical grounds to educate their children according to their conscience.

Imran explained that for parents who choose an approach based on a parent-defined or external curriculum, this proposal is also a problem. The Badman review recommends that children should be required to demonstrate “progress and attainment” in accord with the plan drawn up the previous year. Are children who do not meet the targets set by their parents in the plan to be deemed failures?

Safeguarding

Imran expressed his dismay at the proposal to give local authority education officers powers in excess of those given to child protection social workers – right of entry to the home, and to interview children alone. He said that he would not be prepared to allow his children to be interviewed alone by an officer making a routine monitoring visit.

Dani said that blanket screening of a normal risk population was not an acceptable way to prevent possible law-breaking. Kate said that we don’t visit everyone’s home to check they are not beating their partners. Imran said we don’t visit the homes of all Muslims to check for terrorist activity. Why is it being proposed to check the homes of all home educators, without any evidence that their children are at risk of harm?

Kate said that the idea that a visit once a year from a stranger would enable children to disclose abuse within their families was ridiculous. It is not an effective solution to the perceived problem.

There is some evidence that the home educating community may in fact be a lower risk population. Figures gathered by a national home education campaign show an incidence of child abuse among known home educating families at less than a third of the rate in the population as a whole .

Dani pointed out that for children who are vulnerable or who have particular communication difficulties, the report recommends that the interview should be in the presence of a “trusted adult”. If this means an adult trusted by the child, then presumably the child would have already confided in that adult if there were any problems at home.

Brighton & Hove City Council’s response

Cllr. Kemble suggested that home educators should write to the Director of Children’s Services, to ask for our views to be taken into consideration in drafting the council’s response.

Dani said that she hoped the Cllrs would also pass on our views to the relevant officers, as we had previous experience of meetings with officers which we had felt were ultimately unproductive.

Asked at the end what their position was, Councillor Kemble gave a non-committal answer, saying that in the end it was up to central government to enact these proposals or not.

Present: Cllr. Rachel Fryer, Cllr. Alex Phillips, Dani, Pearl, Imran, Linda, Cintha

The meeting was held to discuss the Badman Review of home education, and how the home education community could have an input to Brighton & Hove City Council?s response to the current government consultation.

Dani presented the councillors with a briefing note and a copy of the Badman Review recommendations and the government's consultation document.

The discussion was friendly and wide-ranging.

Some points that arose were:

Safeguarding

Rachel was concerned about children being home educated by parents who were overly controlling, to the point of being emotionally abusive.

Imran outlined the existing powers of local authorities to carry out an investigation under the Children Act, if there is reason to believe a child is in need of services or is at risk of harm. What we object to is the proposal that all home educating families should be treated with suspicion, even where there is no evidence of a problem.

Dani made the point that blanket surveillance is not an effective way to deal with the problem of child abuse, and mentioned the danger that a screening programme such as that being proposed by Mr. Badman would lead to many people being wrongly suspected of abusing their children (false positives). This is inevitable, and is the reason for mass screening not being employed as a measure to prevent child abuse.

All the parents at the meeting said they would not be happy for a visiting education officer to have the right to interview their child(ren) alone, and that this goes against current best practice. This is what is being proposed by the Badman Review.

Children's right to an education

Rachel was concerned about children not having access to an adequate education

Dani outlined the existing powers of local authorities to deal with situations where it appears that a child is not receiving a suitable education.

Linda explained that local authority officers, who would have the job of assessing suitability of education under the Badman proposals, are not experienced or trained in the wide variety of educational approaches used by home educators, and may well not understand the educational processes that are happening in an autonomously educating family.

Learning to read, for example, does not happen at a predetermined age, but a non-reading home educated child is not unable to learn, because parents can provide educational opportunities through other means than the written word.

The requirement to submit a 12 month plan

All the home educators at the meeting expressed concern about this aspect of the proposals. For autonomous home educators, the idea of predicting outcomes for a child 12 months in advance is entirely at odds with the educational philosophy they have chosen.

For parents who choose an approach based on a parent-defined or external curriculum, this proposal is also a problem. The Badman review recommends that children should be required to demonstrate 'progress and attainment' in accord with the plan drawn up the previous year. Are children who do not meet the targets set by their parents in the plan to be deemed failures?

The power for local authorities to refuse or revoke registration

All the home educators at the meeting pointed out that these recommendations (23 and 24) would leave home educating parents at the mercy of individual local authority officers' prejudices.

The proposal gives local authorities the power to refuse or revoke registration for any reason, and also encourages information sharing between different services, for no practical purpose. This massive increase in meaningless information being passed between service providers could easily cloud or obscure any genuine reasons for concern.

There is no mention in the Review report of any process for appealing against such a decision.

Failure of the Review report to take into account the views of respondents

Dani described the process of consultation that had taken place during the course of the Review, and the previous government consultations on EHE guidelines (2007) and on the duty to identify children not receiving a suitable education (2008).

Home educators all over the country have spent time and effort responding to these repeated consultations and our voices are not being heard, or even acknowledged. Out of 1600 responses by home educating parents and home educated children to the Badman Review, only 2 were quoted in the final report. The recommendations reflect the views of only 10% of respondents to the public questionnaire, and give disproportionate weight to the views of just 25 local authorities, who responded to an additional request for information, subsequent to the initial questionnaire for local authorities.

Brighton & Hove City Council's response

Dani mentioned that Brighton & Hove had responded to both the questionnaires sent to local authorities by Graham Badman. She offered to send Rachel and Alex a link to the first questionnaire response, which had been released following a Freedom of Information Act request.

Because the existence of the second questionnaire was not revealed until over a month after the publication of the report, the response to the second questionnaire has not yet been released under the FOI Act.

Rachel and Alex offered to meet with Gavin Thomas, Head of EOTAS, who will probably be given the job of responding to the current consultation. They will suggest that he meet with home educators as well, before completing the response.

HEdline has written a letter to Councillor Vanessa Brown, Brighton & Hove Council Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children's and Young People's services.  We also sent copies to the Director of children's services for Brighton & Hove Council, to all the other councillors on the Children and Young People's Trust Board, and to Adam Trimingham of the Evening Argus.

The text of our letter is below.  We will post any replies we receive on this website.

Dear Councillor Mrs Brown,

We are writing to invite you to meet with a group of local home educators, to discuss our grave fears and concerns about the implications of the Badman review of Elective Home Education for our children’s privacy and their right to receive an education suited uniquely to them.

We expect you have seen the news stories which marked the release of the Review report and the launch of the current DCSF consultation on Home Education - registration and monitoring proposals.

If you have not done so already, we urge you to read the full Review report, which can be found at:

http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/HC-610_Home-ed.PDF

We hope you will be as shocked as we were by the sweeping and unbalanced recommendations of the report, and the unprofessional way it has been drawn up.

Mr Badman presents no serious evidence that there is a problem with the welfare or safeguarding of home educated children as a group. In fact, in paragraph 8.14 of the report, he states:

“I can find no evidence that elective home education is a particular factor in the removal of children to forced marriage, servitude or trafficking or for inappropriate abusive activities.”

Having been specifically asked to investigate this matter, he presents no analysis of the actual number of suspected and found child abuse cases involving home educators. There are no robust figures or trends presented (even at an aggregated level). Instead there is a vague reference to ‘local authority evidence and case studies’.

On this flimsy basis, Mr. Badman proposes a radical change both to education law and to the relationship between families and the state.

Recommendation 7 of the review, for example, proposes to give officers of local authorities the power to insist on entry to the private homes of home educating families, and to question children alone.

These powers exceed those currently entrusted to child protection social workers in situations where they suspect a child is at risk of significant harm, and the powers of police officers in relation to children suspected of having committed a crime.

We think this proposal is completely disproportionate, and threatens not only our children’s right to a private and family life, as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the right of every child and family in the country, entailing as it does a fundamental shift in the relationship between individual and state.

• Recommendation 1 (establishing a compulsory register of home educators), combined with Recommendation 23 (giving local authorities the right to refuse or revoke registration if there are unspecified ‘safeguarding concerns’) would in effect mean that parents must ask the local authority’s permission each year to educate their own children.

   

  This would undermine a key element of the “fourfold foundation” of English education law. As explained by Lord Bingham in the Ali case (Ali v Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14):

  
  

  “This fourfold foundation has endured over a long period because it has, I think, certain inherent strengths. First, it recognises that the party with the keenest personal interest in securing the best available education for a child ordinarily is, or ought to be, the parent of the child. Depending on age, maturity and family background, the child may or not share that interest. But the parent has a statutory duty. Secondly, the regime recognises that for any child attending school it is that school through which the education provided by the state is in practice delivered. The relationship between school and pupil is close and personal: hence the restrictions on its interruption or termination. It is a relationship resembling, but for the want of consideration, a contractual relationship. But, thirdly, the regime recognises the need for a safety net or longstop to ensure that the education is not neglected of those who for any reason (whether 'illness, exclusion from school or otherwise) are not being educated at school in the ordinary way. It is plainly intended that every child of compulsory school age should receive appropriate education in one way if not another, and that responsibility rests in the last resort with the LEA.” (our emphasis)

  
  

  If local authorities are now to be given the primary duty to ensure that all children receive a suitable education, in place of parents, this well established structure will be completely overturned.

  
  

• Recommendation 2 suggests that the DCSF should review the statutory definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education. At the moment, the definition of “suitable” is set out in Section 7 of the Education Act 1996:

   

  “7. Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age.

  The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

  (a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and

  (b) to any special educational needs he may have,

  either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”

  
  

  For parents who take on the responsibility of fulfilling this duty in person, rather than delegating the education of their children to schools, this is a very clear and stringent definition. The education must suit the individual child. If parents (like schools) were required to deliver a one-size-fits-all “broad and balanced” curriculum, as Graham Badman seems to think desirable, this would be to the detriment of many thousands of children currently receiving a tailor-made education, designed to suit their unique aptitudes and abilities, and constantly adapting to their needs as they grow.

  
  

• Recommendation 1 is also very concerning for home educators whose educational philosophy is child-led or autonomous.

   

  This recommendation includes the proposal that:

  
  

  “At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.”

  
  

  Autonomous learning has been shown to be a very efficient educational approach (see, for example, Paula Rothermel’s 2002 study of outcomes for home ecducated children in the UK, which can be found at http://www.dur.ac.uk/p.j.rothermel/Research/Researchpaper/BERAworkingpaper.htm).

  
  

  We recently recently carried out a small survey of home educators in the Brighton & Hove area (our report is enclosed) which found that autonomous and child-led approaches are the most commonly followed. This point is therefore a matter of great concern for us.

  
  

  At the heart of autonomous education is a commitment to facilitate learning that is freely chosen by the child, not externally imposed on them.

  
  

  For families following such an approach, a requirement to set out intended or desired outcomes for their children 12 months in advance would represent a devastating and unacceptable constraint.

  If you wish to find out more about autonomous education, we recommend ‘How Children Learn at Home’ by Alan Thomas and Harriet Pattison of the Institute of Education (2007), which is available in Brighton & Hove libraries.

The recommendations of the Badman review, if implemented, would mean that local authorities will become legally liable for any failure to secure a suitable education for a child resident in the area. What until now has been a negative right of every child, i.e. not to be denied an education, will, under these proposals, become a positive right i.e. the right to receive a suitable education (as defined by the DCSF). Where in the past this crucial distinction has denied children and their parents the right to recourse when they feel their local authority has failed them, under the proposed changes all such children, whatever their place of education, will have a legal case against the local authority.

In addition to these important matters of legal principle, the recommendations of the Review will require a substantial commitment of time by local authority staff, in order to set up and administer the proposed register, and conduct frequent monitoring visits to the homes of home educating families.

Our survey indicated that there are at least 30 more families already home educating in Brighton &Hove than are known to the EOTAS team.

Ed Balls, in responding to the Review report, did not promise any additional resources for local authorities to help them meet these additional responsibilities. We would be interested in your thoughts on how the proposed changes would be staffed and funded.

Please be aware that there is a large and active home education community in Brighton & Hove. The majority of home educators are implacably opposed to the changes proposed in the review. Along with home educators all over the country, we will be doing whatever we can to prevent them from being implemented, and to protect our children’s right to an education which meets their individual needs

We hope you will consider these issues carefully when responding to the current DCSF consultation.

We would appreciate an opportunity to meet you and any of your colleagues or officers of the council, to discuss these issues.

We have received a draft of a new policy on Elective Home Education for Brighton & Hove Children's and Young People's Trust.

We circulated the draft to interested people in the local home education community, and have responded to it with a series of comments, suggestions, and questions.

The draft policy, together with our comments, can be seen here.

Present:

From Brighton & Hove Council: Maggie Baker, Jan Lord, Sarah Barker
Home educators: Dani Ahrens, Lucy Gulland, Winnie Durdant-Hollamby.

Apologies: Venetia Carter

The discussion at the meeting was far-reaching and covered many issues.  I did not note down everything that was said, but I have attempted to summarise the main discussions and conclusions.

HEdline's case for a new approach

Maggie Baker had read the document HEdline had sent her in advance of the meeting, and agreed that the cases outlined in it were cause for concern.  She said that without specific details such as the names of officers alleged to have behaved inappropriately, she could not follow up the individual cases.

Dani said that HEdline had decided not to include individual officers' names in the document, as they felt the issue was about the overall attitude of the council and the CYPT towards home education, and the culture within the authority, rather than the behaviour of individual members of staff.

Dani said that she and the other members of HEdline who had been involved in the reference group so far had found the process to be extremely frustrating, and that she felt the question of the authority's overall approach had never been properly clarified, leading to a situation where there were disagreements over specific wording in the policy document that could not be resolved.

Towards the end of the meeting, Winnie said that she couldn't understand why Brighton & Hove Council were not keen to take the opportunity to introduce a more open and trusting relationship with home educators, given that this is perfectly within the law and the DCSF guidelines, and that other authorities already have such a relationship which is working well.  Lucy mentioned the system that operates successfully in Milton Keynes.

Maggie said that as she understood it, once someone decides to home educate in Milton Keynes that is the end of the story and there is no further contact between the family and the local authority.

Lucy explained that this is not the case, and that they offer a weekly drop-in and information service which is well used by home educators. 

Jan said she thought there were resource issues about introducing a service like this.  Dani said that she thought it must be more cost-effective to offer a drop-in that people could choose to use, rather than arrange home visits to most home educating families.  Maggie said that some people would not be happy with a drop-in and would prefer home visits.  She said it was difficult to write a policy that would please everyone.  Dani said that HEdline's draft policy described a system where the council offered services which people could choose to take up in the way that suited them.

Lucy said that there are a lot of home educating families in Brighton & Hove who are not receiving any services or support from the local authority, and who do not want or need home visits, who could be reached by a more open, respectful and invitational service.  Dani said that she thought home educators would make use of council services that provided something useful, such as access to an exam centre.

Jan said she would like to explore this idea further, as she is aware that it is a big problem for many families.

Dani said she would send Maggie a link to an article written by one of the HE contacts in Milton Keynes, which describes how things work there.

Specific concerns about the latest draft policy

Dani said that HEdline were not at all happy with the latest draft, which was circulated on 13th June.  The meeting did not go into every detail of the problems, but the main issues mentioned were:

The section on the Law

Dani said that Barbara had agreed to include HEdline's draft of the section on the law, but this had not been done.  The latest draft still included a partial quote from section 10 of the Children Act 2004, which has the effect of changing the meaning of the extract quoted.  It also doesn't mention the DCSF guidelines.

Maggie was given a copy of HEdline's draft policy, and said she would look into this.  She said she would be looking at the DSCF guidelines and reviewing all the documents relating to the development of Brighton & Hove's policy.

The description of a 'minimum' educational 'programme'

The latest draft includes the following wording, in the procedures section:

'The programme should include as a minimum:

Below are my detailed notes from the meeting I attended on April 5th.  This is typed up from the notes I took at the time, and has been checked for accuracy by all the home educators who were present at the meeting.  Apologies for the delay in publishing this, which is due to computer problems.

I am making this report available via the HEdline website and the BHHE email list, so that home educators in Brighton & Hove can have as much information as possible about the current consultation process.

My initial impressions after the meeting are:

• We received a definite and welcome assurance that the new policy will not presume that home educators will accept annual home visits from the EOTAS team, and will not refer to monitoring or tracking of families' educational provision.
• It is still not clear what the scope of the new policy will be, and how it will be embedded across the whole of children's services in Brighton & Hove.  At a meeting with senior officers of the Children's and Young People's Trust in October 2007, HEdline presented a dossier detailing unacceptable treatment of several home educating families by officers working for a range of CYPT services, including social services and education welfare.  I am concerned that we will put time and energy into developing a policy and procedure for the EOTAS team which will not have any impact on these serious issues.
• I think the positive response of Barbara and her colleagues to our suggestion of a range of invitational services (based around a regular open drop-in for home educators) was very encouraging.  I hope we can build on this idea to achieve a truly respectful and valuable relationship between the CYPT and the home education community.

Dani Ahrens
member of HEdline
April 2008

Notes of EHE reference group meeting, 5/4/08

Present: From the EOTAS team - Barbara Benson, Jan Lord, Sarah Barker
Home educators - Lucy Gulland, Sandra Foulsham, Dani Ahrens, Winnie Durdant-Hollamby, Venetia Carter, Sarah Meijer

Introductory comments

Barbara welcomed everyone and offered thanks for people giving up their time to come to the meeting.

Barbara explained that she would listen carefully to people's comments, but would also have to take into account the views of other people who did not wish to attend meetings, and of fellow officers at the council.  She said that her draft would therefore not necessarily reflect the views of the members of this group.

Barbara said that there would be a policy document, setting out general principles, and a separate procedures document, describing how the principles would be applied in practice.

Barbara described the process of developing a policy as follows: Barbara will produce a draft, following around three meetings of this group.  This will then have to be considered by more senior officers, and eventually be presented to a committee of the council for final adoption. 

Dani asked which committee this would be, and Barbara said she was not sure but would find out.

Barbara proposed that we should not start by trying to amend the existing policy, but begin from scratch.  She had therefore circulated a list of headings, as a prompt for discussion.

Headings for the document

We discussed the headings Barbara had suggested.

Dani asked why there were separate headings for 'responsibilities of the Local Authority' and 'role of the Local Authority'.

Barbara said she thought the section on responsibilities would set out what was required by the law, while the section on the Local Authority's role would explain the authority's interpretation of the law, and how it will carry out its duties.

Venetia suggested that this last area might sensibly be combined with the procedure document.

Venetia said that perhaps the sections on the law and principles could also be combined

Scope of the policy

Dani asked about the scope of the policy, and whether it would apply to departments of the CYPT outside the EOTAS team.  She said that she would like to see the policy or procedures give some guidance to staff who are implementing the Children Missing Education (CME) strategy, to staff involved in Truancy patrols, and to Social Services staff who come into contact with home educating families.  She thought there was a need for a policy that covers the whole Trust, and which is embedded across all departments and backed up by training.

Barbara said that the policy would apply to all departments of the council.  She said that the issue of whether the procedures would cover departments other than EOTAS would have to be considered further, but that the EOTAS team would produce guidelines for other departments, based on the policy and procedure documents.

Dani asked if these guidelines would be incorporated into the procedures of other departments, such as the CME strategy document.

Barbara said she was not sure about this, but would raise it at the next CME strategy group meeting.  She said that the CME strategy group has not met since the last meeting between HEdline and Trust officers, in October 2007, so she has not been able to discuss the issues HEdline raised then.

We then began to discuss the proposed headings individually

Introduction

Barbara said she thought this would just be a simple explanation of what elective home education is, and should explain that under English law, education is compulsory but school is not.  This was generally agreed.

The law

Barbara said she thought this section should quote the relevant sections of:

·              the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2, protocol 1, as cited in the DCSF guidelines on home education)

·              the Education Act 1996 (Section 7)

There was some discussion of whether the Children Act 2004 was relevant, in particular the 5 outcomes described in the government's Every Child Matters initiative.  Dani said she was not keen to base the document on the 5 outcomes, as they were very woolly and in some circumstances inappropriate.  Barbara agreed that for many of the children she works with, who are seriously and sometimes terminally ill, the inclusion of 'be healthy' in the 5 outcomes was not particularly meaningful or helpful.

Venetia suggested that this section should include a reference to the DCSF guidelines on home education.  Barbara agreed that this was a good idea.

Principles

Dani suggested that we discuss the section on principles next, as this would determine the overall approach of the policy.

Dani explained that HEdline were proposing a radical change to the council's overall approach to home educators - away from a general intention to monitor the education being provided by means of home visits, and towards a more invitational attitude, focused on providing services and being available (perhaps via a regular, advertised drop in session) to offer support and reassurance on request.

Barbara said that she felt their written materials and practice had shifted a long way in this direction already, and that they do not insist on visits.

Dani said she agreed that there had been a very welcome change in the wording of the letters and leaflets (though she pointed out that the version on the leaflet currently on the council website is the 2005 version, not the much improved 2007 version - Sarah said she would get this changed).  Nevertheless, she felt that there is still a big difference between the clear expectation of regular contact, preferably by home visits, that is contained in the current letters and leaflet, and the more open, invitational approach that she would prefer to see. 

She gave the example of a new home educator, who may be expecting the local authority to tell them how best to educate their child, and would therefore read the leaflet as giving instructions, rather than expressing an opinion.

Venetia said that most home educators experience contact with the local authority as something to be approached with trepidation.  She said that offering a package of services would be a much more positive way to approach families.

Barbara said that the council currently has a large budget deficit, and she was sure there would be no political support for increased spending.

Lucy said that maybe waived or discounted fees at local facilities could be negotiated, rather than direct spending on services.  She gave the example of a group of home educators who regularly hire the Stanley Deason leisure centre at full commercial rates, and asked whether there would be any possibility of this being reduced.

Barbara said that the schools also have to pay hire charges for the leisure centre.  Lucy said that the schools have funding for this from the local council.  Barbara said that the schools have a choice about how to spend their funding.

Lucy said that it should be possible to offer a package of services to home educators that would enhance the possibility of home educated children achieving the 5 outcomes of Every Child Matters.

Barbara said that there is no spare money available for additional services.

Dani said that perhaps some of the staff time currently being spent on visits could be reallocated, for example towards researching ways to make it easier for private candidates to find a local exam centre for GCSEs, which is an issue of concern to many home educating families.

Lucy said that this is an opportunity to work with all the creativity in the local home education community, to produce something groundbreaking and positive.  We should build on the strength of having an extremely large HE community in Brighton.

Venetia said that there could be potential for taking advantage of the fact that home educated children are around during the school day, to increase usage of local facilities at otherwise quiet times. 

Sarah Barker said that she had spoken to the museums service, and that they were willing to provide educational visits for home educating families.  She suggested that we talk to them about the possibilities.

Lucy said that we would be happy to do that, but that we are all just parents, organising all our activities as volunteers, and that it would be nice to have a positive invitation from council services such as the museums service, rather than always having to approach them ourselves.

Venetia said that there is also the fact that if an individual parent finds out about a service or facility, that information is only passed on through the networks that person is part of, and may not reach new home educators, while the EOTAS team are in a good position to ensure that information is disseminated to families who have recently started to home educate.

Sarah Meijer said that part of the role of the policy should be to educate providers of services beyond the direct children's services of the CYPT about home education, so that when families do approach them they are not met with puzzlement or hostility.

Barbara said that perhaps they should also produce guidance for other council services, as well as for childrens services

Lucy said they could fruitfully approach the sixth form colleges, as some people have been encountering very negative attitudes recently, when they have approached the colleges with a view to continuing their education there, post 16.

Barbara agreed that there has been a change in attitude within the colleges in recent years.

Dani said again that the funding for some of these positive services could come from not routinely visiting home educating families.

Lucy asked what percentage of families currently accept regular visits.

Barbara said that they offer to visit everyone they are aware of, and about 95% of families agree.  She said that she estimates they are in touch with around half of the home educating families in the city.

Barbara said that she is always available in her office for people to visit on Fridays, if they want to.

Winnie asked whether the reference in the current policy to 'an annual visit being the minimum contact' would definitely be removed.

Barbara said that it would certainly not be in the new policy.  She said that she does still prefer to visit families, but that the policy will not insist on this.

Sandra said that she has found the visits reassuring.

Jan and Barbara said that they think many people do find the visits to be positive, and that the children like to show their work.

Lucy said that it seemed there were two different spheres; a very busy home education community, within which many families are not known to the council and have no need or wish for visits, as they are able to gain reassurance and support from the HE networks they belong to, and on the other hand families who are in contact with the council but are not participating in these groups, such as Sandra.  Lucy said it would be good to be able to bring these two groups together.

Sandra said that she did not know that there were so many social opportunities for home educated children and that this was something she was looking for, for her son.

Dani talked about the different approach taken by Milton Keynes council, who do not routinely visit families (though they are happy to do this if the families want it).  Instead they offer a weekly drop-in session for home educators at the equivalent to Brighton & Hove's Alternative Centre for Education (ACE), which is also used as an exam centre.  They arrange speakers and maintain an information service for home educators.

Barbara said that she didn't think ACE would be a suitable venue for that kind of service in Brighton & Hove, but that perhaps she could negotiate to rent a room at the South Downs Learning Centre.  She said that maybe she could offer this in addition to continuing to offer visits.

Lucy suggested, as a start, a monthly event where newly home educating families could meet more experienced home educators, as well as making contact with Barbara.  Barbara thought this was a good idea, and will follow this up with Ian Cunningham of the South Downs Learning Centre.

Dani handed round the information leaflets HEdline has recently produced, and suggested that these might be useful for Barbara to give to new home educators, as a way of giving them information about what is going on locally.  She explained that as HEdline has no money at present, there would need to be some kind of arrangement to cover the printing costs.

Next steps

The meeting had now run out of time, so the following plan was agreed:

·              Sarah to type up the minutes and circulate them in advance of the next meeting

·              Barbara to produce a draft policy, and circulate it in advance of the next meeting

·              If anyone has comments, they are invited to circulate these in writing also.  Everyone put their contact details on a list, which was copied and given to everyone at the meeting.

·              The next meeting will be at 3.15pm on Thursday 8th May

·              Barbara is hoping that there will then only need to be one more meeting (probably in June), to produce a final proposed document, which will be taken forward within the council.