Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
88
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Panel - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 5th September 2024
4:30 PM
Thursday, 5th September 2024
4:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 5th September 2024
8:30 PM
Thursday, 5th September 2024
8:30 PM
Actual Time
Started:
Thursday, 5th September 2024
12:00 AM
Thursday, 5th September 2024
12:00 AM
Finished:
Thursday, 5th September 2024
12:00 AM
Thursday, 5th September 2024
12:00 AM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
05 Sep 2024
05 Sep 2024
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Vice-Chair
Deputy Civic Mayor
Committee Member
Conservative Group Leader
Co-Optee
Antoinette Drinkhill
Church of England Education Representative
Present, as expected
Co-Optee
Bernadette Nesbit
Diocese of Hallam Roman Catholic Church
Absent
Guest
Georgina Lightfoot
UNISON
Expected
Chair
Councillor Leanne Hempshall
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Laura Bluff
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Susan Durant
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Charlie Hogarth
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Tracey Moran
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Rob Reid
Absent
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
2
To consider the extent, if any, to which the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.
Minutes
There were no items where the public and press would be excluded from the meeting.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any.
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest declared.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on 18th July 2024
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 18/07/2024 Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Panel 28 Aug 2024
Minutes
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 18th July 2024, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
5
Public Statements
(A period not exceeding 20 minutes for statements from up to 5 members of the public on matters within the Panel’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be considered or contribute towards the future development of the Panel’s work programme).
Minutes
There were three public statements made but the chair wished for them to be heard and considered as part of the main item on the agenda.
6
Elective Home Education
Attachments:
- Document CYP EHE report 050924 final 28 Aug 2024
- Document CYP EHE appendix 050924 final 28 Aug 2024
Minutes
The Panel received a report from the Executive Director Children and Young People and Families and Service Director Education and Skills relating to data and trends in Elective Home Education.
Before Members discussed the report in detail, the Chair requested that two parental statements be read out and that a member of the public was also in attendance to provide a third statement.
It was stated that parental statements one and two had been anonymised to protect identities.
Parental Statement one
Thank you for letting me put our story across to you.
I hope the team can see our struggles and get what they need from it but I also hope they could help my case in any way or give me some advice . Thankyou.
We have 2 boys Andrew and Bertie. Andrew is aged 12 and Bertie is aged 15. They have grown up in a. Stable 2 parent home. Aged 11 Andrew was diagnosed with autism and ADHD. Andrew also has a diagnosis of ARFID.
To us this meant nothing as we always new, just hopeful of more support now we had a diagnosis. We knew he would struggle once he hit mainstream high school.
He started that September. At first school said it’s just the transition (we knew it wasn’t) It was everything. The massive amount of kids in corridors during lesson change, the smells of the lunch hall. The change of teachers not just one. The feel of uniform. The feel of shoes .(was always allowed trainers before in primary).
Each day became worse than the last. He would come out and bang his head against the car window all the way home saying he wanted to kill himself. CAMHS was back on board. (I have still NEVER had a meeting with CAMHS in attendance). He would hurt himself, squeeze his arms and pick the skin on his feet so they were raw and bleeding. He has rituals he had to Conley before bed. He wouldn’t sleep. He was sleeping in our bed aged 12. He wouldn’t eat.
He had many mental health days .
Schools relationship with me was and is really good and they put lots of things in place for Andrew to try and get him through the day .
Unfortunately it got that bad that I couldn’t get him through the door at reception. I was worried so much of getting a school fine that I would put him through so much trauma getting him to school then I would have to leave. It would take up to 3/4 teachers to get him out of reception. Sometimes taking up to 3 hours then they would just say come on let’s get your afternoon mark then you can go (So I didn’t get a fine) So I put Andrew through all of that for a tick on an attendance sheet as he wasn’t actually getting no education.
I had seeked lots of advice about whether I should pull Andrew from school before we did and the last day he came out of school before I pulled him he said he would kill himself if had to go again. I called for a meeting with the head, rang sendias and researched flexi school. The head told me this wasn’t an option and I could pull him but if it went wrong he could always come back.
So I de-registered that day .
My belief as a mother is that Andrew needs a ap or a part time timetable.
The day after de-registering Andrew he was a different child. He was back to eating baby food, he was happy, he never mentioned self harm again. We attended lots of home school groups and classes and travelled to different places. Andrew has been happy and learnt a lot during his home school journey. However he has expressed for about a month now that he is ready to try again. I don’t want him to but I won’t deny him of this either. Andrew has no friends his age and is awaiting an operation to correct his jaw which sticks out severely so he was bullied for this .
I contacted all the relevant professionals who all suggested he attend big picture instead of going straight back into mainstream 5 days a week. I had a meeting with school who said this was not their decision and it would have to go to panel.
Andrew now has his school place back to start in year 8. We are looking to start in October .
I am very concerned as to him going back 5 days a week, I think this would be a huge mistake and I think he would go downhill worse than before .
Andrew does not have a EHCP. This was something the SENCO said he would apply for if I felt he needed it after a few moths back.
I think he does need one as needs additional support daily and again I think mainstream will be too much full time
Even though it has been Andrews decision he has still started back with his bedtime rituals knowing school is fast approaching.
I would be grateful of some help in getting him back properly and having all things in place for him. I would also be grateful if any advice .
That is our story. I hope it helps you in what you need. It is a shame that children like Andrew don’t get the support they need and parents have to home school. I have another son who is in year 11 who is not diagnosed with anything but can’t get through a day without getting excluded for silly things. He has been offered lots of APs and I think the kids who really struggle and need them are lost in the system.
Parental Statement two
As a new parent you're always told that no one knows your child better than you. Until you're a parent of a child with special needs and then everyone knows your child better than you.
We first raised concerns to school about our daughter when she was 5 years old. Those concerns were quickly dismissed as she was a quiet girl who was doing well in school.
However at home she was a very different girl, the stress of masking all day in school was resulting in challenging behaviour both verbally and physically every evening.
As a family we struggled immensely with no support, every day took its toll mentally and emotionally being on the receiving end of behaviour that we fully believed had an underlying cause.
The following years became a pattern of reaching out to school for support, holding meetings only to be reassured she was fine in school.
Finally by the time she was 9 a referral was made to early help. The support they offered was unsuccessful as Jane wasn't interested in reward charts and struggled to identify and understand feelings so we were discharged.
Jane continued to deteriorate and after holding knives to herself and threatening to Jump from windows I contacted CAMHS. They were unable to help as she hadn't harmed herself, it was just for attention.
Our family at this point was in despair as Janes relationships were beginning to break down with everyone. There was no where to turn to as every service we asked for help couldn't help.
A support worker from CAMHS attended the next school meeting and tried to insinuate an attachment disorder. The same support worker outside of the meeting stated that if Jane was autistic it would become apparent in secondary school as it would all become too much and she would be unable to continue masking.
I was sent on parenting courses. As a parent I had been left feeling like a failure, blamed, let down but never once supported. School would still not support a GDA referral as there was still no evidence they could provide, she was fine in school.
Jane missed some of her last year at primary school due to COVID, the only transition days were for those with anxiety or additional needs but this didn't include Jane because she was fine in school.
During year 7 she started making excuses not to go to school, tummy aches, headaches, sore throat. The same behaviours we were used to seeing after school were now emerging prior to school too.
Yet again I arranged a meeting with school to discuss my concerns only to find no information had been passed on regarding these from her primary school. Again school weren't very supportive as she excelling educationally and still masking.
By year 8 the excuses were becoming more frequent and after an incident in which she refused to take part in PE just as CAMHS suggested the masking became too much and we started to experience school refusal.
School eventually agreed to allow temporary access to desperate learning areas. Pretty soon after the expectation was put on Jane to return to her usual classroom environment.
This resulted in a rapid decline in Janes mental health and here began the start of her self harming.
At this point I contacted CAMHS crisis team, when she was finally seen her anxiety was that bad that she couldn't engage. School agreed measurements to put in place for her to return but when Jane arrived she'd find that these hadn't been applied and this broke down the trust between us and school and resulted in Jane feeling like she could no longer attend. She hasn't been in school at all since September 2023.
I contacted the LA to request alternative provision at the end of September 2023 when it became apparent that Jane wouldn't be able to return to school. I was told it was schools responsibility to provide education and was given the information of the process which I forwarded on to school.
With no support for any referrals we were left with no choice but to rely on family to help us find a private diagnosis. Jane was diagnosed with autism with traits of demand avoidance and alexythemia.
Following this school wouldn't support an application for an ehcp so this was done myself. This was turned down and I have a tribunal date for March 2025. However it has now been agreed to start a reassessment in September after it has become apparent that schools lack of knowledge led to them providing inadequate and incorrect information to support my application .
I had to constantly ask school for support while Jane wasn't attending and eventually they agreed to provide 2 hours a day online of very basic English and maths which is still the only support she has received to date. I have felt pressured to off roll her and I was even asked if I had considered home schooling her full time .
During Janes assessment with the educational psychologist he stated that Jane appeared to have a trauma response to school due to years of unmet needs. In February 2023 she began to experience seizures. After several tests it has been diagnosed as non epileptic attack disorder, a condition for those who aren't familiar in which the body is under so much stress and anxiety that it causes the brain to shut down, resulting in seizures.
Jane has recently been seen by the eating disorder team as towards the end of her time in school she wouldn't eat there and this has escalated into controlling behaviour around food. She has been placed back on a waiting list with CAMHS for support with anxiety, mental health, self harm and eating habits.
Despite an autism diagnosis and a diagnosis of a seizure disorder there is still no clear plan in place to support Jane to return to any form of education. It has put a massive strain on the whole family and the battle against the education system is a battle that always continues.
Like thousands of other children missing from education, Jane isn't out of school because we chose for her to be. She is missing out on education simply because there Is nowhere for her. For a large number of children home schooling isn't elective, it's the only option left.
Every suitable place requires an ehcp, due to masking in school throughout her whole education there is no evidence to support her need for one other than the evidence that I as a parent can provide. But now as a parent, that same parent that was told I know my child best. I am no longer the one who knows best as it's everybody else's views that are taken into consideration when deciding what support my child needs.
It is heartbreaking to see your child suffering daily due to neglect throughout her education. I believe this could have been fully prevented if I had been taken seriously and support had been put in place for Jane many years ago.
If more was known, especially around girls and masking, this could have been picked up early enough to identify and support her needs with a much better outcome than where we are now.
If early intervention had been appropriately put in place from relevant services maybe her mental health would have been in a better place for us to not have had to experience disordered eating, self harm, extreme anxiety and seizures.
I don't want any other child or family to have to go through what we've been through. 9 years I have been fighting the education system for support, that's not an appropriate amount of time to let a child struggle and result in having no access to an education whatsoever. Our children are being massively failed and it has to stop.
At this point in the meeting discussion was undertaken in relation to the two anonymised parental statements.
The Executive Director Children Young People and Families apologised for the trauma the families had experienced and acknowledged that no-one would wish for their child to go through what had been described and gave an apology that the system was failing those families. She continued to explain that within this forum, it had regularly been discussed how the health and education care system and special educational needs policy sometimes did not work effectively to meet everyone’s needs.
It was acknowledged that the complex processes and protocols put in place by Central Government, resulted in parents struggling to navigate support required in schools, and schools not always having the skills to address some of the behaviours children presented. It was noted that once a child received an ECHP it could continue to be difficult because provision was not always in the right place. The increased demand for EHCPs was highlighted and that pre-covid there were approximately 600 EHCPs that required managing compared to over 2000 now, with a significant increase in young people presenting themselves with additional needs and support.
It was noted that when the “System” was discussed this related not only to the Education system but the health system, delayed diagnosis and support for young people before and after diagnosis. The Executive Director referred to the heartbreaking stories heard earlier in the meeting and stressed that there was a strong desire to change the system. It was stressed that there were no quick fixes and there was an understanding of why people would wish to home educate their children.
To conclude, reference was made to the report for consideration at this meeting and highlighted that there were a number of reasons why parents chose to home educate.
The Chair questioned out of the 828 children being home educated how many were on the SEN register before they were electively home educated? It was explained that SEND support plans were managed through schools and therefore the local authority would not hold this information. The Local Authority retained some records relating to SEND support plans but they could be incomplete. This was because parents were not obliged to give certain information. It was noted that a lot of children that became electively home educated were generally at a transition point to secondary education.
The Panel continued by discussing the difficulties of unravelling educational problems that were linked with mental health services and acknowledged that partners held many discussions about what mental health services best supported young people. It was noted that CAMHS was working with young people that had a diagnosable mental health disorder, at the high end of the spectrum. Through the social mental health hub efforts were being made to try and achieve a better understanding of, for example, young people with neurodiversity and the impact of sensory overload. The Local Authority with schools were undertaking work to address emotional wellbeing in schools. The systems in place were accepted but because some young people’s needs were so unique not every child could be supported immediately, but noted that over the last 8 years practices had improved. It was stressed to the Panel there were a number of young people who were thriving through being electively home educated.
In response to comments relating to engagement with parents, it was explained that officers had recently met with over 350 families and as a result had helped shape the change to services and engaged regularly with the Parental “Make the Difference” Group. On an individual basis, for example following receipt of a complaint, officers would engage with the parental to seek how to improve services. Young people were also involved in governance and decision making, discussing their personal experiences with partners, being undertaken through a challenge session.
It was accepted that historically, in Doncaster there had not been enough provision and had therefore established 4 social, emotional and mental health hubs (education centres), 3 for primary age to address early intervention and 1 secondary, addressing issues including school anxiety. The Doncaster Big Picture had been expanded to now support 144 young people at key stage 3 and additional outreach for up to 80 children at key stage 2. The vega provision was also available for key stage 4 and has this year been increased to 50 young people. Provision was being invested in and increased beyond what was statutorily required. It was also reported that reframing funding for the high needs block had been addressed with all SENCOs and Headteachers so it was equitable rather than equal to ensure funding entering schools matched the demographic need rather than a formulaic approach.
The Panel was reminded that local authorities were not able to build new educational provision but had to work within what was already in place. It was believed that incrementally a positive difference was being made. It was also stressed that two toolkits had been developed for professionals and one for parents, that has already encouraged and increased the direct approaches being made by parents.
Parental Statement 3
A parent from Doncaster attended the meeting and provided the following statement.
The parent explained that she had listened to everything that had been said so far in the meeting and understood it and outlined that she heard similar stories every week. She stated that the Executive Director of Children, Young People and Families was correct in saying that not everyone was forced to electively home educate and she chose for her twins to be home educated who were now in their 20’s.
She outlined that to teach your children you have to learn on your feet and it resulted in them both attending university. She explained that, using phonics with a child who had autism was too much for them to take in, but taught the old fashioned way by using Janet and John books and adapted teaching to their learning skills.
It was explained that her children aimed to achieve GCSE Maths and English at 14 to focus on ‘A Levels’ to achieve university points, and that this had worked successfully. One of her younger children wished to study sport at college earlier than the usual age intake and they were informed this would be ok. However, they did not get a place at college due to there being only 15 places available with over 55 applying for the course and accepted that the college would take the older young people first.
The parent continued to explain that listening to the parental statements and experience and talking to other parents about EHE, mental health was the biggest issue children faced. She continued to state that she did not wish to subject her children to some of the practices in academies, for example, the use of isolation rooms and using a whistle to call children like dogs.
To conclude she explained that some people do not take responsibility but want the state to hold responsibility and yes this was fine. There has been a lot of apologise today and great points made but could things move forward quickly to address the root of the problem.
The Executive Director thanked the parent for attending the meeting and sharing her story and highlighted the conversations they had held earlier in the week. An invitation was offered to the parent to become a member of the “Making a Difference” parental group to help shape future provision. She expanded by outlining the school environment had a massive impact on how young people progressed and felt strongly to bring balance, stating that not every Academy held punitive behaviour policies. With regard to mental health the emotional and wellbeing support for young people, this was a common theme, and for children who were electively home educated, questioned how the local authority could monitor these young people in a supportive way rather than an investigative way.
It was outlined by the parent in attendance that some parents would not welcome engagement with the local authority so a balance needs to be found to move forward to help everyone.
The parent in attendance concluded by explaining there were many routes and networks where elective home education had real positive elements. For example, Doncaster was very lucky having Potteric Carr and Cusworth Hall (particularly the heritage session) that provided excellent learning facilities. The Flip Out facility provided exercise and a great place to socialise.
The chair thanked the parent for their input and that they were welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting.
The Panel took account of the information received together with the report circulated with the agenda and addressed the following issues in detail:
Majority of children electively home educated at secondary education age – it was explained that there were many reasons why children were home educated at secondary education. A large number of traveller families home educate their children after finishing primary school.
It was acknowledged that when a child reached secondary education the pressure was much increased to learn and achieve and for some children this was not the right setting or way to reach their potential and parents tended to withdraw their children from a formal educational setting. Nationally and in general a large number of children were withdrawn from school since the pandemic, however, Doncaster had not seen a massive increase in home education immediately after Covid, but has seen an increase in recent years. By home educating parents could find improved work life balance with no set hour stipulated, providing their children with more independent learning. It was highlighted that a 14 year old could be left to study alone but a 6 year old would require strong supervision.
Working with mainstream academies to reduce numbers electively home educated – in response to a Member questioning if elective home education was a trend in larger academies, it was outlined there were no worrying trends of some Academy Trusts having more children withdrawn than others.
It was outlined that schools with a larger demographic of traveller children could sometimes have slightly higher numbers of children leaving mainstream education at secondary phase and becoming home educated. If children were withdrawn from a school setting, the Education Welfare Officer continued to work with families regarding the education offer.
It was noted that sometimes parents do not inform the local authority that they were home schooling their child and that there was no legal obligation for them to be included on a register. Schools however, informed the local authority where they have been made aware that a child has been withdrawn.
In response to concern expressed by the Chair, the Executive Director for Children, Families and Young People explained that when the local authority was aware of children that were involved with safeguarding services, for example, early help, section 17’s or child protection those children would mostly be on a school roll and with safeguarding arrangements in place. Caution was aired that there would always be the unknown.
With regard to when a child was withdrawn from school it was explained that as soon as the local authority received a notification from school the parent was contacted immediately. It was outlined that the law stated that parents were not required to notify the local authority. It was explained that if a child was home educated from 4 years old there was no obligation for parents to provide an explanation.
It was noted that if a child that was electively home educated and moved to another authority, no matter where the child moved from, that authority would liaise with the new authority. If a child moved schools between local authorities the school had an obligation to report this to the local authority who would then inform the new local authority a child had moved into its areas. Until a child was back on a school roll they were placed on a child missing from education and background checks would be undertaken, until they were back on a school roll.
It was explained that schools must contact the local authority immediately when a child was removed from the school roll, the local authority contacted parents within 3 days and given a 6 week period for parents to let the local authority know how their child would be educated.
A Member thanked the officers for the reassurance that there was a safety net to ensure the local authority was aware, as much as allowed, to ensure all children were safe.
In response to concern expressed that if children did not present themselves to any authority whether it be health or education and what support could be offered if partner organisations were not aware of these children. It was explained that the information collated by the local authority was based on information around births in Doncaster with the data moving into early years, and formed the basis of admissions to main stream schools. It was confirmed that each child when born was given an NHS number.
A Member referred to information from a statement read out earlier in the meeting relating to a child receiving their mark but not attending classes and questioned if there were any sanctions with regard to this. It was noted that it would never be advocated that a child or young persons goes to school just to receive their mark. The development in learning opportunities in Doncaster was highlighted with schools having access to this provision, for example schools could refer to Big Picture learning. There was also a link between the attendance officer for schools who supported, challenged and assisted with alternative provision where required.
It was also explained that the new Government guidance stated that schools should inform the local authority of any child on a reduced timetable to ensure schools were challenged about why children were on partial timetables and steps being taken to progress back to the full timetable. It was accepted that some children required a part time timetable with additional support from a number of partners.
Year 11 places at Doncaster college for young people who had been electively home educated – it was explained that parents would fund the college placement and if a young person has an EHCP a request could be made for funding via EHCP funding. It was clarified that there were free college places in addition to funded places at colleges but dependent on each college and what was being offered.
Mandatory register for children electively home educated – In response to a member supporting this and acknowledging that Doncaster held a voluntary register, it was explained it was only as accurate as the information provided by schools, health and parental engagement. With regard to a mandatory national register it was always at the forefront of discussion in the Government. It was noted however, that there was a very strong lobby group from parents who were against this idea.
The effectiveness of the local authority register was acknowledged, to keep a record of children across the City, their education, social needs, child protection and any additional needs.
In response to a question, it was confirmed that if a child was 5 and never attended school they would not have an EHCP but they could have a social worker.
Concern was expressed about the children the local authority and partners were not aware of but the panel was advised this would be very few children and that any family, including foreign families, that engaged with any service, the local authority was aware of them and many checks could be undertaken when they became school age.
Yearly reviews with families providing elective home education – it was explained that contact was made by initially emailing parents informing them that the annual check was due, with parents generally provided a large file of evidence, including book work, videos, photographs and group work. If the work was deemed suitable it was confirmed with the parent. If evidence was not provided within two weeks, parents were contacted by phone. If parents would not engage a face to face visit with education welfare officers would be undertaken. If it was found a child was not receiving suitable education, mechanisms were in place to address this, including school attendance. It was however explained that the law provides that families do not need to engage or prove suitable education was being provided.
It was explained that a number of steps would be undertaken before a parent was required to attend court if it was proven a suitable education was not being provided, but this would be a last resort. The process would start with a child being required to return to school and if still no engagement then a court process would commence.
Reasons to electively home educate – reference was made to paragraph 34 of the report and it was explained that the right reason to home educate a child was when a parent was fully aware of the commitment, cost, impact on family life and a balanced view on how to educate their child. Home education could provide a less stressful environment for a child for example, a full day of steady learning could be spent on a particular topic if the child was struggling.
The wrong reasons were if there were disagreements with schools, children being suspended and excluded.
Funding formula – In response to a member highlighting that funding for schools was based on pupil roll, it was explained that once a child undertakes home schooling then that funding was removed. If a child moved schools or attended alternative education then the funding would follow the child. It was confirmed that no funding was available to children who were home educated.
It was agreed that the elective home education toolkit be circulated to the Panel.
Mental health support for children electively home educated – It was confirmed that mental health services were available to any child whether they were electively home educated or in mainstream schooling. Access to services may hold a different route but referrals to CAMHS would remain the same. Promotion to holiday activity programmes remained the same for all children where emotional support could be accessed. Within the Doncaster local offer there were many links to services, including specialised services, that could support a child.
To conclude, in response to the Vice chair who sought reassurance the local authority was doing the best it could for the children across the City that were electively home educated, it was outlined that the local authority was doing as much as it possibly could and would like to continue to learn about some of the issues that had been raised through the public statements.
RESOLVED that:-
1. The Panel had reviewed and noted the content of the report and the work completed;
2. The Panel requests that the Executive Board and Cabinet members lobby Central Government to make it a legal requirement for parents to inform the local authority and schools of reasons why they had chosen to electively home educate their child eg. compulsory register to assist local authority capture the reasons; and
3. Set a timeframe between the local authority being notified about those children that were being home educated and the decision being made and initial support being provided to parents embarking on home education with regular checks undertaken and guidance provided toward available resources.
Before Members discussed the report in detail, the Chair requested that two parental statements be read out and that a member of the public was also in attendance to provide a third statement.
It was stated that parental statements one and two had been anonymised to protect identities.
Parental Statement one
Thank you for letting me put our story across to you.
I hope the team can see our struggles and get what they need from it but I also hope they could help my case in any way or give me some advice . Thankyou.
We have 2 boys Andrew and Bertie. Andrew is aged 12 and Bertie is aged 15. They have grown up in a. Stable 2 parent home. Aged 11 Andrew was diagnosed with autism and ADHD. Andrew also has a diagnosis of ARFID.
To us this meant nothing as we always new, just hopeful of more support now we had a diagnosis. We knew he would struggle once he hit mainstream high school.
He started that September. At first school said it’s just the transition (we knew it wasn’t) It was everything. The massive amount of kids in corridors during lesson change, the smells of the lunch hall. The change of teachers not just one. The feel of uniform. The feel of shoes .(was always allowed trainers before in primary).
Each day became worse than the last. He would come out and bang his head against the car window all the way home saying he wanted to kill himself. CAMHS was back on board. (I have still NEVER had a meeting with CAMHS in attendance). He would hurt himself, squeeze his arms and pick the skin on his feet so they were raw and bleeding. He has rituals he had to Conley before bed. He wouldn’t sleep. He was sleeping in our bed aged 12. He wouldn’t eat.
He had many mental health days .
Schools relationship with me was and is really good and they put lots of things in place for Andrew to try and get him through the day .
Unfortunately it got that bad that I couldn’t get him through the door at reception. I was worried so much of getting a school fine that I would put him through so much trauma getting him to school then I would have to leave. It would take up to 3/4 teachers to get him out of reception. Sometimes taking up to 3 hours then they would just say come on let’s get your afternoon mark then you can go (So I didn’t get a fine) So I put Andrew through all of that for a tick on an attendance sheet as he wasn’t actually getting no education.
I had seeked lots of advice about whether I should pull Andrew from school before we did and the last day he came out of school before I pulled him he said he would kill himself if had to go again. I called for a meeting with the head, rang sendias and researched flexi school. The head told me this wasn’t an option and I could pull him but if it went wrong he could always come back.
So I de-registered that day .
My belief as a mother is that Andrew needs a ap or a part time timetable.
The day after de-registering Andrew he was a different child. He was back to eating baby food, he was happy, he never mentioned self harm again. We attended lots of home school groups and classes and travelled to different places. Andrew has been happy and learnt a lot during his home school journey. However he has expressed for about a month now that he is ready to try again. I don’t want him to but I won’t deny him of this either. Andrew has no friends his age and is awaiting an operation to correct his jaw which sticks out severely so he was bullied for this .
I contacted all the relevant professionals who all suggested he attend big picture instead of going straight back into mainstream 5 days a week. I had a meeting with school who said this was not their decision and it would have to go to panel.
Andrew now has his school place back to start in year 8. We are looking to start in October .
I am very concerned as to him going back 5 days a week, I think this would be a huge mistake and I think he would go downhill worse than before .
Andrew does not have a EHCP. This was something the SENCO said he would apply for if I felt he needed it after a few moths back.
I think he does need one as needs additional support daily and again I think mainstream will be too much full time
Even though it has been Andrews decision he has still started back with his bedtime rituals knowing school is fast approaching.
I would be grateful of some help in getting him back properly and having all things in place for him. I would also be grateful if any advice .
That is our story. I hope it helps you in what you need. It is a shame that children like Andrew don’t get the support they need and parents have to home school. I have another son who is in year 11 who is not diagnosed with anything but can’t get through a day without getting excluded for silly things. He has been offered lots of APs and I think the kids who really struggle and need them are lost in the system.
Parental Statement two
As a new parent you're always told that no one knows your child better than you. Until you're a parent of a child with special needs and then everyone knows your child better than you.
We first raised concerns to school about our daughter when she was 5 years old. Those concerns were quickly dismissed as she was a quiet girl who was doing well in school.
However at home she was a very different girl, the stress of masking all day in school was resulting in challenging behaviour both verbally and physically every evening.
As a family we struggled immensely with no support, every day took its toll mentally and emotionally being on the receiving end of behaviour that we fully believed had an underlying cause.
The following years became a pattern of reaching out to school for support, holding meetings only to be reassured she was fine in school.
Finally by the time she was 9 a referral was made to early help. The support they offered was unsuccessful as Jane wasn't interested in reward charts and struggled to identify and understand feelings so we were discharged.
Jane continued to deteriorate and after holding knives to herself and threatening to Jump from windows I contacted CAMHS. They were unable to help as she hadn't harmed herself, it was just for attention.
Our family at this point was in despair as Janes relationships were beginning to break down with everyone. There was no where to turn to as every service we asked for help couldn't help.
A support worker from CAMHS attended the next school meeting and tried to insinuate an attachment disorder. The same support worker outside of the meeting stated that if Jane was autistic it would become apparent in secondary school as it would all become too much and she would be unable to continue masking.
I was sent on parenting courses. As a parent I had been left feeling like a failure, blamed, let down but never once supported. School would still not support a GDA referral as there was still no evidence they could provide, she was fine in school.
Jane missed some of her last year at primary school due to COVID, the only transition days were for those with anxiety or additional needs but this didn't include Jane because she was fine in school.
During year 7 she started making excuses not to go to school, tummy aches, headaches, sore throat. The same behaviours we were used to seeing after school were now emerging prior to school too.
Yet again I arranged a meeting with school to discuss my concerns only to find no information had been passed on regarding these from her primary school. Again school weren't very supportive as she excelling educationally and still masking.
By year 8 the excuses were becoming more frequent and after an incident in which she refused to take part in PE just as CAMHS suggested the masking became too much and we started to experience school refusal.
School eventually agreed to allow temporary access to desperate learning areas. Pretty soon after the expectation was put on Jane to return to her usual classroom environment.
This resulted in a rapid decline in Janes mental health and here began the start of her self harming.
At this point I contacted CAMHS crisis team, when she was finally seen her anxiety was that bad that she couldn't engage. School agreed measurements to put in place for her to return but when Jane arrived she'd find that these hadn't been applied and this broke down the trust between us and school and resulted in Jane feeling like she could no longer attend. She hasn't been in school at all since September 2023.
I contacted the LA to request alternative provision at the end of September 2023 when it became apparent that Jane wouldn't be able to return to school. I was told it was schools responsibility to provide education and was given the information of the process which I forwarded on to school.
With no support for any referrals we were left with no choice but to rely on family to help us find a private diagnosis. Jane was diagnosed with autism with traits of demand avoidance and alexythemia.
Following this school wouldn't support an application for an ehcp so this was done myself. This was turned down and I have a tribunal date for March 2025. However it has now been agreed to start a reassessment in September after it has become apparent that schools lack of knowledge led to them providing inadequate and incorrect information to support my application .
I had to constantly ask school for support while Jane wasn't attending and eventually they agreed to provide 2 hours a day online of very basic English and maths which is still the only support she has received to date. I have felt pressured to off roll her and I was even asked if I had considered home schooling her full time .
During Janes assessment with the educational psychologist he stated that Jane appeared to have a trauma response to school due to years of unmet needs. In February 2023 she began to experience seizures. After several tests it has been diagnosed as non epileptic attack disorder, a condition for those who aren't familiar in which the body is under so much stress and anxiety that it causes the brain to shut down, resulting in seizures.
Jane has recently been seen by the eating disorder team as towards the end of her time in school she wouldn't eat there and this has escalated into controlling behaviour around food. She has been placed back on a waiting list with CAMHS for support with anxiety, mental health, self harm and eating habits.
Despite an autism diagnosis and a diagnosis of a seizure disorder there is still no clear plan in place to support Jane to return to any form of education. It has put a massive strain on the whole family and the battle against the education system is a battle that always continues.
Like thousands of other children missing from education, Jane isn't out of school because we chose for her to be. She is missing out on education simply because there Is nowhere for her. For a large number of children home schooling isn't elective, it's the only option left.
Every suitable place requires an ehcp, due to masking in school throughout her whole education there is no evidence to support her need for one other than the evidence that I as a parent can provide. But now as a parent, that same parent that was told I know my child best. I am no longer the one who knows best as it's everybody else's views that are taken into consideration when deciding what support my child needs.
It is heartbreaking to see your child suffering daily due to neglect throughout her education. I believe this could have been fully prevented if I had been taken seriously and support had been put in place for Jane many years ago.
If more was known, especially around girls and masking, this could have been picked up early enough to identify and support her needs with a much better outcome than where we are now.
If early intervention had been appropriately put in place from relevant services maybe her mental health would have been in a better place for us to not have had to experience disordered eating, self harm, extreme anxiety and seizures.
I don't want any other child or family to have to go through what we've been through. 9 years I have been fighting the education system for support, that's not an appropriate amount of time to let a child struggle and result in having no access to an education whatsoever. Our children are being massively failed and it has to stop.
At this point in the meeting discussion was undertaken in relation to the two anonymised parental statements.
The Executive Director Children Young People and Families apologised for the trauma the families had experienced and acknowledged that no-one would wish for their child to go through what had been described and gave an apology that the system was failing those families. She continued to explain that within this forum, it had regularly been discussed how the health and education care system and special educational needs policy sometimes did not work effectively to meet everyone’s needs.
It was acknowledged that the complex processes and protocols put in place by Central Government, resulted in parents struggling to navigate support required in schools, and schools not always having the skills to address some of the behaviours children presented. It was noted that once a child received an ECHP it could continue to be difficult because provision was not always in the right place. The increased demand for EHCPs was highlighted and that pre-covid there were approximately 600 EHCPs that required managing compared to over 2000 now, with a significant increase in young people presenting themselves with additional needs and support.
It was noted that when the “System” was discussed this related not only to the Education system but the health system, delayed diagnosis and support for young people before and after diagnosis. The Executive Director referred to the heartbreaking stories heard earlier in the meeting and stressed that there was a strong desire to change the system. It was stressed that there were no quick fixes and there was an understanding of why people would wish to home educate their children.
To conclude, reference was made to the report for consideration at this meeting and highlighted that there were a number of reasons why parents chose to home educate.
The Chair questioned out of the 828 children being home educated how many were on the SEN register before they were electively home educated? It was explained that SEND support plans were managed through schools and therefore the local authority would not hold this information. The Local Authority retained some records relating to SEND support plans but they could be incomplete. This was because parents were not obliged to give certain information. It was noted that a lot of children that became electively home educated were generally at a transition point to secondary education.
The Panel continued by discussing the difficulties of unravelling educational problems that were linked with mental health services and acknowledged that partners held many discussions about what mental health services best supported young people. It was noted that CAMHS was working with young people that had a diagnosable mental health disorder, at the high end of the spectrum. Through the social mental health hub efforts were being made to try and achieve a better understanding of, for example, young people with neurodiversity and the impact of sensory overload. The Local Authority with schools were undertaking work to address emotional wellbeing in schools. The systems in place were accepted but because some young people’s needs were so unique not every child could be supported immediately, but noted that over the last 8 years practices had improved. It was stressed to the Panel there were a number of young people who were thriving through being electively home educated.
In response to comments relating to engagement with parents, it was explained that officers had recently met with over 350 families and as a result had helped shape the change to services and engaged regularly with the Parental “Make the Difference” Group. On an individual basis, for example following receipt of a complaint, officers would engage with the parental to seek how to improve services. Young people were also involved in governance and decision making, discussing their personal experiences with partners, being undertaken through a challenge session.
It was accepted that historically, in Doncaster there had not been enough provision and had therefore established 4 social, emotional and mental health hubs (education centres), 3 for primary age to address early intervention and 1 secondary, addressing issues including school anxiety. The Doncaster Big Picture had been expanded to now support 144 young people at key stage 3 and additional outreach for up to 80 children at key stage 2. The vega provision was also available for key stage 4 and has this year been increased to 50 young people. Provision was being invested in and increased beyond what was statutorily required. It was also reported that reframing funding for the high needs block had been addressed with all SENCOs and Headteachers so it was equitable rather than equal to ensure funding entering schools matched the demographic need rather than a formulaic approach.
The Panel was reminded that local authorities were not able to build new educational provision but had to work within what was already in place. It was believed that incrementally a positive difference was being made. It was also stressed that two toolkits had been developed for professionals and one for parents, that has already encouraged and increased the direct approaches being made by parents.
Parental Statement 3
A parent from Doncaster attended the meeting and provided the following statement.
The parent explained that she had listened to everything that had been said so far in the meeting and understood it and outlined that she heard similar stories every week. She stated that the Executive Director of Children, Young People and Families was correct in saying that not everyone was forced to electively home educate and she chose for her twins to be home educated who were now in their 20’s.
She outlined that to teach your children you have to learn on your feet and it resulted in them both attending university. She explained that, using phonics with a child who had autism was too much for them to take in, but taught the old fashioned way by using Janet and John books and adapted teaching to their learning skills.
It was explained that her children aimed to achieve GCSE Maths and English at 14 to focus on ‘A Levels’ to achieve university points, and that this had worked successfully. One of her younger children wished to study sport at college earlier than the usual age intake and they were informed this would be ok. However, they did not get a place at college due to there being only 15 places available with over 55 applying for the course and accepted that the college would take the older young people first.
The parent continued to explain that listening to the parental statements and experience and talking to other parents about EHE, mental health was the biggest issue children faced. She continued to state that she did not wish to subject her children to some of the practices in academies, for example, the use of isolation rooms and using a whistle to call children like dogs.
To conclude she explained that some people do not take responsibility but want the state to hold responsibility and yes this was fine. There has been a lot of apologise today and great points made but could things move forward quickly to address the root of the problem.
The Executive Director thanked the parent for attending the meeting and sharing her story and highlighted the conversations they had held earlier in the week. An invitation was offered to the parent to become a member of the “Making a Difference” parental group to help shape future provision. She expanded by outlining the school environment had a massive impact on how young people progressed and felt strongly to bring balance, stating that not every Academy held punitive behaviour policies. With regard to mental health the emotional and wellbeing support for young people, this was a common theme, and for children who were electively home educated, questioned how the local authority could monitor these young people in a supportive way rather than an investigative way.
It was outlined by the parent in attendance that some parents would not welcome engagement with the local authority so a balance needs to be found to move forward to help everyone.
The parent in attendance concluded by explaining there were many routes and networks where elective home education had real positive elements. For example, Doncaster was very lucky having Potteric Carr and Cusworth Hall (particularly the heritage session) that provided excellent learning facilities. The Flip Out facility provided exercise and a great place to socialise.
The chair thanked the parent for their input and that they were welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting.
The Panel took account of the information received together with the report circulated with the agenda and addressed the following issues in detail:
Majority of children electively home educated at secondary education age – it was explained that there were many reasons why children were home educated at secondary education. A large number of traveller families home educate their children after finishing primary school.
It was acknowledged that when a child reached secondary education the pressure was much increased to learn and achieve and for some children this was not the right setting or way to reach their potential and parents tended to withdraw their children from a formal educational setting. Nationally and in general a large number of children were withdrawn from school since the pandemic, however, Doncaster had not seen a massive increase in home education immediately after Covid, but has seen an increase in recent years. By home educating parents could find improved work life balance with no set hour stipulated, providing their children with more independent learning. It was highlighted that a 14 year old could be left to study alone but a 6 year old would require strong supervision.
Working with mainstream academies to reduce numbers electively home educated – in response to a Member questioning if elective home education was a trend in larger academies, it was outlined there were no worrying trends of some Academy Trusts having more children withdrawn than others.
It was outlined that schools with a larger demographic of traveller children could sometimes have slightly higher numbers of children leaving mainstream education at secondary phase and becoming home educated. If children were withdrawn from a school setting, the Education Welfare Officer continued to work with families regarding the education offer.
It was noted that sometimes parents do not inform the local authority that they were home schooling their child and that there was no legal obligation for them to be included on a register. Schools however, informed the local authority where they have been made aware that a child has been withdrawn.
In response to concern expressed by the Chair, the Executive Director for Children, Families and Young People explained that when the local authority was aware of children that were involved with safeguarding services, for example, early help, section 17’s or child protection those children would mostly be on a school roll and with safeguarding arrangements in place. Caution was aired that there would always be the unknown.
With regard to when a child was withdrawn from school it was explained that as soon as the local authority received a notification from school the parent was contacted immediately. It was outlined that the law stated that parents were not required to notify the local authority. It was explained that if a child was home educated from 4 years old there was no obligation for parents to provide an explanation.
It was noted that if a child that was electively home educated and moved to another authority, no matter where the child moved from, that authority would liaise with the new authority. If a child moved schools between local authorities the school had an obligation to report this to the local authority who would then inform the new local authority a child had moved into its areas. Until a child was back on a school roll they were placed on a child missing from education and background checks would be undertaken, until they were back on a school roll.
It was explained that schools must contact the local authority immediately when a child was removed from the school roll, the local authority contacted parents within 3 days and given a 6 week period for parents to let the local authority know how their child would be educated.
A Member thanked the officers for the reassurance that there was a safety net to ensure the local authority was aware, as much as allowed, to ensure all children were safe.
In response to concern expressed that if children did not present themselves to any authority whether it be health or education and what support could be offered if partner organisations were not aware of these children. It was explained that the information collated by the local authority was based on information around births in Doncaster with the data moving into early years, and formed the basis of admissions to main stream schools. It was confirmed that each child when born was given an NHS number.
A Member referred to information from a statement read out earlier in the meeting relating to a child receiving their mark but not attending classes and questioned if there were any sanctions with regard to this. It was noted that it would never be advocated that a child or young persons goes to school just to receive their mark. The development in learning opportunities in Doncaster was highlighted with schools having access to this provision, for example schools could refer to Big Picture learning. There was also a link between the attendance officer for schools who supported, challenged and assisted with alternative provision where required.
It was also explained that the new Government guidance stated that schools should inform the local authority of any child on a reduced timetable to ensure schools were challenged about why children were on partial timetables and steps being taken to progress back to the full timetable. It was accepted that some children required a part time timetable with additional support from a number of partners.
Year 11 places at Doncaster college for young people who had been electively home educated – it was explained that parents would fund the college placement and if a young person has an EHCP a request could be made for funding via EHCP funding. It was clarified that there were free college places in addition to funded places at colleges but dependent on each college and what was being offered.
Mandatory register for children electively home educated – In response to a member supporting this and acknowledging that Doncaster held a voluntary register, it was explained it was only as accurate as the information provided by schools, health and parental engagement. With regard to a mandatory national register it was always at the forefront of discussion in the Government. It was noted however, that there was a very strong lobby group from parents who were against this idea.
The effectiveness of the local authority register was acknowledged, to keep a record of children across the City, their education, social needs, child protection and any additional needs.
In response to a question, it was confirmed that if a child was 5 and never attended school they would not have an EHCP but they could have a social worker.
Concern was expressed about the children the local authority and partners were not aware of but the panel was advised this would be very few children and that any family, including foreign families, that engaged with any service, the local authority was aware of them and many checks could be undertaken when they became school age.
Yearly reviews with families providing elective home education – it was explained that contact was made by initially emailing parents informing them that the annual check was due, with parents generally provided a large file of evidence, including book work, videos, photographs and group work. If the work was deemed suitable it was confirmed with the parent. If evidence was not provided within two weeks, parents were contacted by phone. If parents would not engage a face to face visit with education welfare officers would be undertaken. If it was found a child was not receiving suitable education, mechanisms were in place to address this, including school attendance. It was however explained that the law provides that families do not need to engage or prove suitable education was being provided.
It was explained that a number of steps would be undertaken before a parent was required to attend court if it was proven a suitable education was not being provided, but this would be a last resort. The process would start with a child being required to return to school and if still no engagement then a court process would commence.
Reasons to electively home educate – reference was made to paragraph 34 of the report and it was explained that the right reason to home educate a child was when a parent was fully aware of the commitment, cost, impact on family life and a balanced view on how to educate their child. Home education could provide a less stressful environment for a child for example, a full day of steady learning could be spent on a particular topic if the child was struggling.
The wrong reasons were if there were disagreements with schools, children being suspended and excluded.
Funding formula – In response to a member highlighting that funding for schools was based on pupil roll, it was explained that once a child undertakes home schooling then that funding was removed. If a child moved schools or attended alternative education then the funding would follow the child. It was confirmed that no funding was available to children who were home educated.
It was agreed that the elective home education toolkit be circulated to the Panel.
Mental health support for children electively home educated – It was confirmed that mental health services were available to any child whether they were electively home educated or in mainstream schooling. Access to services may hold a different route but referrals to CAMHS would remain the same. Promotion to holiday activity programmes remained the same for all children where emotional support could be accessed. Within the Doncaster local offer there were many links to services, including specialised services, that could support a child.
To conclude, in response to the Vice chair who sought reassurance the local authority was doing the best it could for the children across the City that were electively home educated, it was outlined that the local authority was doing as much as it possibly could and would like to continue to learn about some of the issues that had been raised through the public statements.
RESOLVED that:-
1. The Panel had reviewed and noted the content of the report and the work completed;
2. The Panel requests that the Executive Board and Cabinet members lobby Central Government to make it a legal requirement for parents to inform the local authority and schools of reasons why they had chosen to electively home educate their child eg. compulsory register to assist local authority capture the reasons; and
3. Set a timeframe between the local authority being notified about those children that were being home educated and the decision being made and initial support being provided to parents embarking on home education with regular checks undertaken and guidance provided toward available resources.
7
Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and the Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions
Attachments:
- Document MASTER WORK PLAN FINAL 202425 28 Aug 2024
- Document Forward Plan for cyp 28 Aug 2024
Minutes
The Senior Governance Officer presented the Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions for the Panel’s information.
RESOLVED that the information, be noted.
RESOLVED that the information, be noted.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in