Home Education

Debate between Andrew Selous and Lia Nici

Monday 27th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on the level-headed way in which he introduced the debate.

All of us have enormous sympathy for any parent whose child has been bullied at school, or has ended up with poor mental health as a result of experiences they have had at school. As a parent, I can completely understand the natural instinct to want to withdraw one’s child into the safe bosom and cocoon of family, and get them away from bullying if the school is not able to protect the child or help to stabilise their mental health. That is a real issue that we must take seriously.

I am acutely conscious that when we talk about home education, we are talking about a huge spectrum. There are some parents who are incredibly dedicated and do it exceptionally well. I give enormous thanks for their dedication, time and sacrifice. It needs the lightest of state supervision and overview if the parents are doing a good job and the child is happy, well adjusted and learning well. That is fantastic, and I thank those families and those parents. But we have to be honest that there is a spectrum, and at the other end there are parents who cannot read or write who are “home educating” their children. I believe passionately that every single child has the right to fulfil their God-given potential, and I worry about children who are not being equipped with the widest possible education and who are unable to fulfil their full potential.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

My hon. Friend touches on a point that is important in my constituency of Great Grimsby, where more and more children are severely absent from school and disappearing from school rolls. When we find them wandering the streets in the middle of the afternoon, we are told they are being home schooled. They are now prey to county lines and other forms of illegal activity, and their parents or carers are often unable to provide teaching and home education. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look seriously at that?

[Andrew Selous]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises a very important point. I have seen exactly that in my constituency: school-age children in and out of shops in the middle of the day. My area is also subject to the terrible scourge of county lines. There are huge safeguarding and criminal concerns about what is happening to some of these children, and we need to take them seriously.

My concerns are shared by the Education Committee, which recently stated:

“the status quo does not allow the Government to say with confidence that a suitable education is being provided to every child in the country.”

Those concerns are shared by Ofsted. The Department for Education has stated that there is “considerable evidence” that many children who are home educated

“are not receiving a suitable education.”

It is instructive to compare England with other countries. I am indebted to the Centre for Social Justice, which points out that oversight and assessment of educational progress is commonplace across Europe but that there is no such quality assurance in England. In Germany, I am told, it is actually illegal to home educate a child. I think that that is a step too far—as I said earlier, I thank those parents who do a great job and whose children progress well, and I would leave them well alone—but what other countries in Europe are doing is instructive. They ensure regular checks on attainment and progress in home language, maths and so on.

For about 20 years, I was a school governor of my village school. At one point, I was the safeguarding governor, and as such, I was required to read a lot of guidance from the Minister’s Department. At the time, the guidance was “Keeping children safe in education: statutory guidance for schools and colleges”, from September 2016—there may be updated advice. That statutory guidance was very prescriptive and the matter was taken very seriously. Let me quote briefly from it:

“Local authorities have a duty to establish, as far as it is possible to do so, the identity of children of compulsory school age who are missing education in their area.”

There are various other pretty severe injunctions. It is curious that there is a significant body of safeguarding guidance for children who are in school but, as far as I can see, none to speak of that can be properly enforced for children who are home educated.

Before the debate, I had a look at article 28 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which states:

“States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively”,

there is a requirement to make

“primary education compulsory and available free to all”,

and to offer

“different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education”—

that is important. The article goes on to say that measures should be taken

“to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates”,

and that state parties should take that seriously in order to contribute

“to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world”.

We are a signatory to that. Article 28, to which the UK has signed up, as far as I am aware, is really important. I ask the Minister: how do we enforce that right for children who are being home educated by parents who cannot read or write, or are not making any effort to teach them English, for example? I think we are in very serious breach, actually. I am afraid to say that we have averted our gaze from a contentious issue because it is inconvenient. The children do not vote, and the parents, who have a different view, do, so we are not doing what we should.

Responsibilities for home schooling are set out, as they are for every child, in section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which states:

“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him”—

as the father of three daughters, I think it should say “or her”—

“to receive efficient full-time education”.

Rather bizarrely, it goes on to say later that they are not required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, and do not have to follow the national curriculum. Central Bedfordshire Council, which gave me a briefing before the debate, stated:

“The local authority has a legal duty under Section 437 of the Education Act 1996 to act ‘if it appears’ that a child of compulsory school age is not receiving suitable education, although the Education Act does not give powers to the authority to insist on seeing the child, visit the family home or see the work that the child is completing.”

It is pretty challenging for the local authority to assess how well the child is doing if it cannot see the child, visit the family home or see the work the child is completing. Some local authorities manage to do that, which is tremendous, but I worry about the fact that we have not given them the powers to make sure every child is receiving an “efficient full-time education” that is suitable for them. That should concern us.

If a child is in a mainstream school or an academy, the school is expected to enter them for national curriculum assessments. There is also a statutory duty on all children to be in education or employment with training up to the age of 18. I agree with both those requirements, but the reality is that that is not happening for a number of home-schooled children.

I am also aware that when some parents claim their children are being home schooled, they are actually in unregistered schools, of which there are a number. I read an article in The Economist last year about a young man of 18 who had been in an unregistered school—I think his parents claimed that he was home educated—and sometimes had schooling for 14 hours a day, but when he left at 18 he could not read or speak English. Are we really saying that that is acceptable? That was an unregistered school, and Ofsted has a duty to do something about that, but it is quite hard for Ofsted to get on top of the issue because a lot of parents say that the child is being home educated. What about the right of that young person to read and speak the mother tongue of their home country? Do we care about these things or not?

In my constituency, like that of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), whose presence graces us today, the numbers of children being home schooled have gone up very significantly. On 15 June 2015, in the 2015-16 year, 283 children were in elective home education in my area. By 2020-21, that had gone up to 493. That is the most recent figure that I could get. No doubt the figure is higher; I suspect the majority are probably in my constituency, as well. How high are we happy for that number to get without knowing what is happening—1,000, 2,000, or 3,000? Is that acceptable? Personally, I do not think it is.

I would say that across the Chamber, whatever political party we are from, we are all concerned about the life chances of children. We are all concerned about ladders of opportunity. We are all concerned about social mobility and the elimination of poverty. However, how will we achieve any of those things when a significant number of our children are not having the education it is their right to have? We talk about the rights of parents and I believe, as a parent myself, in those rights, but I think that children have the right to a proper, broad-based education to enable them to achieve everything that they are capable of achieving.

That is why I encourage the Minister to progress down the route that the Secretary of State has said she wants to go down. Of course we need to do it sensitively. I do not want heavy-handed officials going into people’s homes in an inappropriate manner. It needs to be a decent, civilised conversation on how the child is progressing and we cannot afford to just look the other way, as I believe we have done on this issue for far too long.