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.