1

2

Ethnic Minority Achievement Unit

Department for Education and Skills

Sanctuary Buildings

Great Smith Street

Westminster

London SW1P 3BT

Sheila Longstaff

Ethnic Minority Achievement Unit

Tel: 020 7925 5431

Sheila.Longstaff@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

All the un-attributed information and views expressed in this document are those of

the author alone and they do not necessarily reflect in any way the views, position or

policies of the Department for Education and Skills.

Tel: 01457 872764 A.Ivatts@ukgateway.net

3

seemingly marked increase year-on-year of the number of Gypsy/Roma and

Traveller families opting for Elective Home Education (EHE). This has been

expressed as a development causing concern given that it is suggested that EHE is

being used merely as a device to avoid school attendance without legal penalty. This

concern has also been related to the fact that a majority of the parents are judged to

be ill equipped to organise or deliver an education suited to their children’s ages,

aptitudes, abilities and any special needs they may have.

investigate the situation in regard to the current policy, provision and practice in EHE

for Gypsy/Roma and Traveller children. This initiative was seen as compatible with

the Department’s duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The

research was also timely as DfES draft guidance on EHE was being considered at

the time.

local authorities were identified by DfES as models of good practice for the inclusion

of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. One was sent to the TES and one to the

department/officer responsible for the approval and monitoring/inspection of EHE

provision. 16 responses were received from the EHE monitoring/ inspection official

and 20 were returned from the TES.1

concerns expressed by the TESs and other commentators including the Office for

Standards in Education (OFSTED). “There is a growing trend among Traveller

families for secondary-aged pupils, in particular, to be educated at home. The

adequacy, suitability and quality of such provision are very uneven and raise serious

concerns.”2

authorities traditionally neglecting their responsibilities to these communities, there

has always been reluctance by many families within some of these communities to

send their children to school, and particularly to secondary school. There are many

complex reasons underpinning this reluctance.

observed that there is a total of nearly 3,000 children registered as receiving EHE

and those at the secondary stage are over twice as many as the number in primary

education.

EHE within the sample are Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. The small sample

size and two different data sources account for the wide range of this estimate and it

See DfES draft Guidance 2004/5.

2 “Provision and Support for Traveller Pupils” HMI 455 OFSTED November 2003, pp2.

3 See Annex 1. DfES 2005 School Census data for minority ethnic pupils. Published February 2006.

4

should, therefore, be treated with caution. It should also be noted that the rate of

option has increased year-on-year by approximately 40%4.

opting for EHE. Predominant among these are fear of cultural erosion, a judged lack

of relevance within the secondary school curriculum and the fear of racist and other

factor for most families.

EHE. While most LAs provide families with initial and post registration advice, only 2

gave practical help in the form of educational materials. All LAs write a report

following monitoring/inspection visits and a majority share these reports with the TES

and other departments/agencies on a need-to-know basis. More care appears to be

taken in relation of pupils with special educational needs (SEN).6

initial and or monitoring/inspection visit and that in one case this is neither recorded

nor reported to other agencies. There are also a number of these LAs within the

survey who visit without seeing the child and who just record this information without

passing it on to other agencies as a matter of routine. In the cases where the incident

is reported, the data do not provide information on the process, agency reported to,

and subsequent actions taken. (Within the existing legislation, the visiting officer has

no legal rights to see the child nor in relation to a right of access to the home to see

the teaching/learning situation/environment.)7

required to notify the school if they decide to withdraw the child and educate her/him

at home. They are not legally required to notify the local education authority unless

children, a school may see the ‘without notice’ withdrawal of a child as linked to the

family’s legitimate nomadic lifestyle and so may not automatically notify other

agencies within the authority or log this with the national child Information Sharing

Index database. It is to be noted that if a child has never been registered with a

school, then there is no duty on the parent to notify the LA if they decide to educate,

or arrange to have educated, the child(ren) at home. The obligation to notify the

appropriate local authority is also not required under current legislation if the child:

has never attended a maintained school in that authority’s area; has finished primary

education at one school but has not started secondary education in another (and

other conditions) This situation could again be problematic in relation to Gypsy/Roma

50% of LAs, it showed that 18% of children with an Irish Traveller heritage, opted for EHE at the

point of transfer to secondary school. In relation to Gypsy/Roma the rate was 26%. (overall for all

‘Traveller’ groups it was 14%) Of all of these children, 10% and 11% respectively were recorded as

living in housing. Lancashire County Council, Traveller Education Service, Preston. September 2005.

relation to EHE decisions. See:” Gypsy Traveller Students in Secondary School”, Chris Derrington and

Sally Kendall. Trentham Books, London, 2004. “Education other than at School: A Way Forward for

Gypsy/Travellers”. Research by Caroline Dyer, Amanda Anders, Charlotte Dean – Leeds University

2004/5.

but it is for the authority to decide.

under Section 14 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000.

8 See DfES EHE Guidance.

5

and Traveller families in so many ways and particularly in light of their nomadic

lifestyle. Many children start school late and so it is possible that children from these

backgrounds at any age within Key Stages 1 and 2, could start their education at

home with no previous school registration and so with no duty on the parent to notify

the appropriate authorities. Many families travel between different local authorities

and it is the anxiety about secondary education that is so high with many families.

The current regulations clearly place these children in a very vulnerable situation.

taken between a request for registration and the initial monitoring/inspection visit and

between the latter and final approval or rejection. In many cases this can take up to

one term of school time or more during which time, Gypsy/Roma and Traveller

children usually receive no formal education.

had attended in-service training on EHE and that only 36% had attended any

raises serious doubts about the quality of professional judgements being made by

officers during initial and or monitoring/inspection visits to families from these

backgrounds.

whether Gypsy/Roma and Traveller children in receipt of EHE were receiving fulltime

(20 hours per week) and appropriate educational provision, mainly due to

concerns over parents’ skills, especially in regard to literacy and numeracy. These

concerns also included issues surrounding; the level of parental commitment,

enthusiasm and motivation; the parents’ recognition on the children’s needs, attitudes

and aspirations; the opportunities in particular for Gypsy/Roma and Traveller girls;

examinations; access to careers advice; access to support for work-experience and

the frequent difficulties encountered in monitoring/inspecting the provision given the

nomadic lifestyle of some families.11

children back into mainstream schools following a court action or parental choice,

noted problems at the secondary phase relating to the ethos of the school as not

being ‘Traveller-friendly’; the difficulties caused by the lack of previous education of

these children; reluctance on the part of parents and children to return to school and

the high levels of costly support needed. It is very interesting to note that nearly a

third of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller children registered with EHE are sedentary in

housing. This is a very significant development given the rapid growth in numbers

over the last four years and the estimated total number of ‘housed’ Gypsies/Roma

and Travellers nationally.12

methods for all education officers who are monitoring and or otherwise involved with EHE”.

10 DfES EHE Guidance says that “LAs may also wish to consider any views expressed by the child”.

and Traveller families in relation to EHE. The three possibilities (not mutually exclusive) are, Parent or

family member as teacher, appointment of tutors, and ‘cultural apprenticeship’. The latter is seen as the

weakest and the most common. It usually involves children working alongside their parents and

learning the skills of life for cultural survival. It is usually based on gender segregation and role and

makes little contribution to the development of literacy and numeracy skills.

12 Estimated by DfES and other informed sources, at 350,000 plus.

6

opting for Elective Home Education (EHE) as reported by Traveller Education

Services in the last few years, prompted the lead officer of the Ethnic Minority

extent of this development and to assess the nature and quality of the provision for

the children involved and the policy implications.

number of potential pitfalls in relation to the interpretation of the information and

research data presented about Gypsy/Roma, Traveller and travelling communities.

The specific focus on these particular groups within the context of the increasing

number who are being educated at home should in no way be interpreted as an

implicit statement of criticism of the families themselves or the provision of home

education. Readers are also advised to note the author’s concern regarding the

creation and or confirmation of stereotypes, either negative or positive, within the

context of a short research report constrained by the need for brevity. Further, that

the representation of these groups as a focus of Departmental concern should in no

way be seen as an implied cultural pathology or a deficit model of the lifestyle and

culture of all or any of these groups.

the situation in regard to the current policy, provision and practice in EHE for

Gypsy/Roma and Traveller children. The methodology was the design of two

current practice. While most of the analysis and comment is based on the in-house

research material, other relevant research findings have been taken into

consideration and appropriate footnote references given when used in the text.

Gypsy/Roma, Traveller and travelling children. There is extensive documentation

starting with the Plowden14 report, and including reports written by Her Majesty’sInspectors of Schools (HMI),

three aspects of education for these communities. Official data stemming from the

little over many years.

communities, there has always been reluctance by many families within some of

these communities to send their children to school, and particularly to secondary

responsible for the inspection and or approval of home education provision.

(England). HMSO 1967, London. This report is better known as the ‘Plowden Report’.

“The Education of Travelling Children” Ref: HMR/12/96/NS OFSTED 1996.

“Provision and support for Traveller pupils”, HMI 455 OFSTED, November 2003.

relevant categories: Gypsy/Roma and Traveller of Irish heritage.

7

school. There are many reasons underpinning this reluctance and racist bullying is

increasingly being revealed as an additional and significant causal factor.17

resulted in more and more children attending primary school and transferring

successfully to secondary school. The ‘drop-out’ profile, however, at Key Stages 3

and 4 is still a matter for serious concern. In the two most recent OFSTED reports,18

attention has been drawn to the strong possibility of 12,000 secondary aged children

from these communities not being registered with any school.

picture is still unacceptable. However, in the last several years a significant

development had been identified which appears to be adding a further element to

these justified concerns. This is the phenomena of a disproportionate number of

families opting to exercise their rights under the education acts, to educate their

children at home. It is strongly suggested by some informed observers that the

traditional Gypsy/Roma and Traveller communities learnt about this legal possibility

from their association with New Travellers, many of whom are better informed on the

intricacies of the educational law surrounding school attendance. Irrespective of this,

however, the fact remains that all the evidence points to increasing numbers of

families making this decision for the education of their children.

A total of 23 local authorities were selected for inclusion in the survey. The return

rate was 16 (72.7%) for the LA questionnaire and 20 (91%) for the questionnaires

returned by TESs. In the interests of clarity for the reader, comment in relation to

statistical data follows each of the questions in tern.

The data analysis which follows is in two main sections starting with the analysis from

the questionnaires returned by the LAs EHE monitoring official. The second section

is that data stemming from the questionnaires returned by the TESs.

Phase Total number of

children

Primary 889

Base=15 LAs

Within the 15 LAs which responded to this question it is observed that there is a total

of nearly 3,000 children registered as receiving EHE and those at the secondary

stage are over double the number in primary education. These figures should be

treated with caution as many of them are estimates.

Books, 2004.

“Provision and support for Traveller pupils”, HMI 455 OFSTED, November 2003.

8

The emphasis in statistics towards preference at the secondary level is given greater

detail in the table below which links numbers to Key Stages. Around a third of pupils

opting for EHE are at primary school (31%) although it is to be noted that only 9% of

pupils opting for EHE are at Key Stage One.

Year Group Total number of

children

% Mean number per

responding LEA

Total 3104 100 194

Base=16 LAs

Reasons for EHE Registration Estimated number of Travellers

registered for EHE

Particular educational philosophy 123

Fear of cultural erosion 366

Coursework/curriculum stress 0

Curriculum relevance 363

Racist and other bullying 51

Exclusion/risk of exclusion 16

Attendance difficulties 2

Pressure of EWS/TES for non-attendance 3

Staff/pupil personality conflicts 6

Nomadic life-style/routines 29

Religious reasons 0

Lack of school places 0

Other 64

Total Estimated number of Traveller pupils in

EHE cohort

1023

Base=15 LEAs

insights into the motivations of families opting for EHE. It is important to note,

however, that it is not known whether these assessments are based on questions to

families or guesswork by LA officials completing the questionnaires. By far the most

significant reasons relate to ‘fear of cultural erosion’ (35.7%) and ‘curriculum

relevance’ (35.5%), although ‘particular educational philosophy’ (12%) was also seen

9

as a strong factor. In relative terms, ‘racist and other bullying’ (5%) features in low

profile, but it may be that LA officials would not be over-keen for this to be

acknowledged as a dimension of the LA’s schools. The practical considerations of a

nomadic lifestyle would seem to be a very low factor in electing for home education.

It could be argued that ‘fear of cultural erosion’ and ‘curriculum relevance’ are closely

related considerations in the process that families go through when assessing the

value of education. If this premise is accepted, then 71% of Traveller pupils

registered for EHE opted for EHE because of reasons reflecting the marked

mismatch in relation to the prescriptive cultural values of the communities and those

of the schools. Many families feel that schools are not offering what is seen as worthy

and desirable, particularly once literacy and numeracy skills have been secured

during the primary stages of education.

(N)

No

(N)

Have a written policy on EHE? 11 4

Provide initial advice to families asking to register

as EHE?

16 0

Have special arrangements made in relation to

timing/procedures for initial visit to Traveller

families?

12 3

Apply LA criteria/principles about suitability of EHE

to all families?

15 1

Write reports for each monitoring/inspection visit 16 0

Share the above with TES if involves a Traveller

family

12 2

Always see the child/children during initial and

monitoring/inspection visits?

5 10

Provide the EHE family with educational

resources/books/materials?

2 13

Additional information provided with answers to Question 4-20 included:

7 stated that they send written information or guidance to families and 5 visit

the families in person (or someone from LA does). 3 LAs stated that the

advice focuses on procedures, rights, responsibilities and requirements.

initial visit to the Traveller families the majority stated that the TES would be

involved in the visit (where appropriate). 2 LAs also said that they were

flexible with the timing of the visits.

were based on the appropriateness of the provision.

and monitoring/inspection visits only 1 said that this was not recorded or

reported to other agencies. The majority of LAs that said they do see the

child also said that where this did not happen this would be recorded and

reported.

10

advice tends to come from monitoring/inspection visits, from advisers, from

written material/guidance and advice over the phone. Families tend to be

provided with advice about where to get help/support/resources, information

about EHE processes and advice on the curriculum or appropriate education.

There are a number of key points with important policy implications stemming

from the data collected by this question. It is to be noted that 4 (25%) of the 16

LAs do not have a written policy on EHE. In addition, 10 (62.5%) reported that

they do not always see the child during an initial and or monitoring/inspection visit

and that in one case, this is neither recorded nor reported. Clearly there are also

a number of LAs who visit without seeing the child and who just record this

information. In the cases where the incident is reported, the data does not

provide information of the process, agency reported to, and subsequent actions.

Advice and information provided to families would seem to be supportive, but

may well be a hostage to the knowledge, skills and understanding of the parents

to put it to full use in the interests of the children’s education. It may also be the

case that many parents will have low level literacy skills.

Time period between initial request and visit

2 weeks or less 3

2-8 weeks 10

8 weeks or more 2

Unspecific 1

Standard Time period between visit and decision/approval*

Less than a week 2

1-2 weeks 2

More than 2 weeks but less than 4 3

4 weeks or more 3

to case basis although we do not know the criteria/checklist used for such decisions.

This table’s data reveals one or two issues with policy implications linked to

entitlement and child protection considerations. Firstly, at least 12 LAs take between

2 weeks and over 8 weeks to make an initial visit following a request for EHE

registration. Two LAs (12.5%) said that it was over 8 weeks. The time taken between

the initial visit and the approval decision can take 4 weeks or more (6 LAs) and, in

some cases, 12 weeks or more (3 LAs). Apart from the clearly established lack of

uniformity in the procedures between LAs, it is also the case that in a significant

number of cases, long delays may be encountered by families both in terms of time

of initial visit and decision/approval with up to the loss of a full school term. This is not

to say, however, that the children will necessarily be loosing out on purposeful

education during this period as some may still be in school and others may be

receiving education at home, but for some, the limbo period of uncertainty may not

always be used wisely by parents, and especially so, if the children are needed to

engage in domestic and or economic activities/duties within the family. In response to

an initial visit to Traveller families and in most cases this involved liaison with the

assess the viability of the provision. Five LAs returned copies of policies detailing the

11

criteria applied and these will be analysed during stage two of the research. Fourteen

the background of the family.

each year although most commented that this would be more frequent if there

were felt to be problems. 2 LAs made 6 monthly visits and one said that it

varied.

A majority appear to visit the families once a year to assess the provision as to

whether it still complies with the requirements as judged by the LA. While the data in

this stage of the research does not provide information on the agenda and duration of

such visits, it is good that most LAs say that if they encountered areas of concern

then more frequent visits may be arranged. Again at this stage of the research it is

not known whether any assessment is made at such monitoring/inspection visit re the

progress the child(ren) has made during the year.

visit, and all but three shared these reports with the TES. In one case this practice

reports were shared with other departments/agencies. Only 3 LAs said that they were

kept by the monitor/inspector, but the majority said that they were shared with other

departments. In most cases this involved special needs (and especially if the child

had a statement) and education welfare. In some cases the reports were also shared

with social services (if concerns), and health departments. One LA reported that all

such reports were seen by an Assistant Education Officer who would decide on the

whether the child(ren) was always seen during an initial visit. Only 5 (33%) said yes

to this question and only 2 (13%) LAs said that this information would be reported to

another agency.

partial responses.

status in any of the academic years requested*.

• 5 LAs were able to give partial responses to this question:

o There were no reports of a child being refused EHE status in 2000/01

being refused EHE status in 2001/02

EHE status

refused EHE status.

12

* It is not clear whether there were really no children refused EHE status or whether

there was no available data on this.

It would seem apparent from the data that the availability of official records is not that

secure in terms of initial approvals and refusals following applications for EHE. Only

a third of LAs were able to provide only partial information. The number of refusals

within the 5 LAs who responded to this question increased each year for Traveller

families, but this may just reflect the increasing number of applications rather than a

toughing up of the criteria for acceptance although this might also have been the

case.

gave data for 2003/04 in which no family was prosecuted*.

2001/02 but that in 2002/03 2 Traveller families and 1 non-Traveller family

was prosecuted and 3 Traveller families and 1 non-Traveller family in

2003/04.

*It is not clear whether there were really no families prosecuted or whether there

was no available data on this.

had been prosecuted for this reason*.

3 Traveller families were prosecuted for this reason.

*It is not clear whether there were really no families taken to court or whether

there was no available data on this.

resources/books/materials to EHE families, the estimate was £10.

It may well be that of the other 15 LAs there were no costs involved on account of

there being no resources given to families.

education and in at least one LA this was both oral and written.

13

This data raises serious doubts about the quality of professional judgements being

made by officers during initial and or monitoring/inspection visits to Traveller families.

stated that the LA only approves or opposes the EHE request if the child is in

a special school – otherwise it is the parents’ choice and right to withdraw

their child. 2 LAs stated that the decision was made jointly between EHE and

SEN officers, 2 LAs stated that there was no change in the decision-making

process and 2 LAs stated that responsibility for that child was given to SEN.

6 LAs reported joint monitoring/inspection between SEN and EHE.

Despite a variety of practice, it seems clear that special attention is given in

cases that concern children with statements of special educational need.

Traveller issues.

receiving full and appropriate educational provision, mainly due to concerns

over the parents’ skills especially in literacy and numeracy.

education and that often EHE was used as a way of legally withdrawing

children from school. 3 LAs were also concerned about increasing numbers

of Traveller families registering as EHE and the domino effect that this has in

communities.

disadvantaged and that the lack of appropriate educational provision

restricted the opportunities available to EHE Traveller children.

lifestyles of the families.

participation in public examinations for EHE children, the majority of LAs who

responded mentioned that EHE Traveller children do not take public exams or

SATs; 4 LAs also mentioned that exams/SATs are not applicable or relevant

to these families. 5 LAs mentioned practical difficulties such as funding,

coursework and finding somewhere to sit the examinations.

EHE Traveller children the majority of LAs stated that work experience or

employment was arranged informally through the families and communities.

4 LAs noted that Connexions or other advice was rarely used by these

families and 2 suggested problems with accessing further education. 5 LAs

also mentioned health & safety/insurance issues, some stating that they could

not arrange work experience as these pupils would not be covered by

insurance.

14

2000/01 177 9.3

2001/02 260 13.7

Base=19 LAs

*3 LAs responded with estimates, one of which estimated between 40-50 pupils in

each year – this estimate is not included in the table above.

It is interesting to note that 3 (15%) of TESs could only estimate numbers of Traveller

pupils on EHE and one of these estimated relatively high numbers which have not

been included in the calculation. A serious question mark over the quality of the TES

database is raised in these three cases. It is not possible to compare this overall

statistical data with that contained within the LA responses as the questionnaire

return rates were different, as too, were the totals recorded for all children registered

as EHE. It should also be noted that the rate of option has increased year-on-year by

approximately 40%.

children in their LAs. 5 LAs stated that these were approximate or estimated

figures.

with an average of 500.5 per TES.

• An estimated 58% of these Traveller children are enrolled in schools.

average of 23.1 per TES.

Traveller children make up an estimated 16% of these pupils.

Gypsy/Traveller 409 78

Roma 66 13

Fairground 5 1

Circus 0 0

New Traveller 24 5

Other 19 4

Total 523 100

15

By far the largest group opting for EHE is within the Gypsy/Traveller community –

nearly 80%. What is also significant and unexpected is the relatively high number of

Roma opting for EHE. It has always been assumed that their interest in coming to the

UK has been linked to their interest in the quality of education and the avoidance of

special schools. In addition, New Travellers feature as expected given their

traditional leaning towards EHE. What is also of interest is the relatively small

number of Fairground children registered as EHE.

were able to give a breakdown of EHE-registered Traveller children by year

group.

Foundation 0 0

Year 1 9 2

Year 2 4 1

Year 3 4 1

Year 4 7 2

Year 5 12 3

Year 6 18 4

Year 7 76 18

Year 8 89 21

Year 9 85 20

Year 10 75 17

Year 11 55 13

Total 434 100

Base=18 TES

While there are a number of Traveller children registered as EHE in the primary

years, it is clear that nearly 90% are in the secondary phase of education. The data

does not provide information on whether Key Stage 1 children are part of families

who are either nomadic and or coming from particular backgrounds. This will be

looked at in the second stage of the research. It should be noted, however, that at

Key Stage 2 there is a marked increase in children opting for EHE in years 5 and 6

(7% in total). The peak years are years 8 and 9 but the observed fall-off in years 10

and 11 could reflect a reality that some children may have dropped out of education

at this stage and or have no need to elect as at that age they feel immune from legal

action for non-attendance at school.

Traveller families. The results from these TES are presented in the table

below.

that among the reasons for EHE registration of Traveller families were:

o Educational philosophy

o Fear of cultural erosion

o Coursework/curriculum stress

16

o Curriculum relevance

o Racist and other bullying

o Nomadic lifestyle/work routines

Particular educational philosophy 50 10

Fear of ‘cultural erosion’ 165 34

Coursework/curriculum stress 4 1

Curriculum relevance 56 12

Racist and other bullying 67 14

Exclusion or risk of exclusion 12 2

Attendance difficulties 6 1

Pressure of EWS/TES for non-attendance 18 4

Staff/pupil conflict 10 2

Nomadic lifestyle/work routines 19 4

Religious reasons 10 2

Lack of school places 1 0

Other 67 14

Total 485 100

Base=15 TES

important insights into the motivations of families opting for EHE. It is important to

note, however, that it is not known whether these assessments are based on

questions to families or guesswork by TES coordinators completing the

questionnaires. By far the most significant reasons seem to relate to ‘fear of cultural

erosion’ (34% [the same % as within the LA questionnaire returns]), ‘racist and other

bullying’ (14%) and ‘curriculum relevance’ (12%), although ‘particular educational

philosophy’ (10%) was also seen as a causal factor, but there is no evidence as to

what these might be or suggested to be since the author does not have access to the

returned questionnaires. It is important to note that the differences in alleged reasons

for choice of EHE given by the LEA and the TES may reflect the differences in the

quality of the relationships between the two professional groups and the Traveller

communities. Of particular note and importance to this study is the differences in the

numbers recorded for ‘racist and other bullying’ (4.9% for the former and 14% for the

latter). Again, the practical considerations of a nomadic lifestyle would seem to be a

low factor in electing for home education. Although on the basis of this data it could

still be argued that ‘fear of cultural erosion’ and ‘curriculum relevance’ are closely

related considerations in the process that families go through when assessing the

value of education (combined figure of 46% as opposed to 71% for the LA returns), it

also has to be recognised that fear of racist and other bullying features prominently in

the list of casual factors. It could also be argued that ‘staff/pupil conflict’ and

‘exclusion or risk of exclusion’ might well be linked to bullying and thus the casual

factor may in reality be even more significant. Within the 14% of responses under

‘other’, a majority said that parents sighted a combination of factors including cultural

erosion, racist bullying and curriculum relevance. Other reasons included health, the

withdrawal of girls prior to the onset of puberty, peer group pressure and in one case,

the fact threat the local secondary school was placed in special measures following

an OFSTED Section 10 inspection.

(Number)

No

(Number)

Have its own policy on EHE? 3 15

17

(If no to own policy) follow the LAs EHE policy? 13 0

Provide any initial advice for families opting for EHE? 16 2

Have any further contact with the family once they have

been referred to the LA monitoring/inspection person?

17 3

Provide the family with any educational

resources/books/materials?*

1

(estimated

cost=£20)

Asked to reintegrate Traveller pupils into schools where

the family has decided to end EHE?

16 4

most common response was that families were given advice about the pros

and cons of EHE education, usually with the aim of encouraging them to

leave the child in school. Two (2) TESs said that advice was given on the

practicalities of EHE such as their duties etc. and 2 TESs actually offered

practical support with applying for EHE (such as help with filling in forms).

families, most said that the frequency of contact varied and would depend on

the situation. For example “Frequency depends on mobility and needs of

each individual”. 5 TESs said that they maintained regular contact.

into school, 3 stated that they had faced no particular problems with this.

However, many TESs did note problems relating to the ethos of the school as

not Traveller-friendly, the difficulties caused by the lack of education of these

children, reluctance on the part of parents and children to return to school and

the high levels of support needed.

Only 3 TESs had written policies, although the clear majority adopted the LA’s

standard policy. In addition, only one TES provided the families with educational

materials and books, although this was not thought to be above £20 per family.

Only 2 TESs helped the families to find tutors. Two thirds of TESs had

participated in relevant in-service training on EHE. This is in reverse contrast with

the LA officers responsible for initial approval and monitoring/inspection.

impact. A number of respondents pointed to the disappointment or frustration

of schools, usually primary schools, and the relief or encouragement of

secondary schools. Linked to this, 3 TESs stated that Traveller pupils opting

into EHE meant that schools became less able to respond to the needs of

Traveller pupils. Two (2) TESs also pointed to the impact on the schools

attendance figures and test results.

High 11 55

Average 4 20

Low 4 20

18

The data revealed in this table provides a variable picture, but over 50% of TESs

have a high level of liaison with the monitoring/inspection process. It still remains that

25% have either low or non-existent liaison with the quality assurance process. This

aspect of the findings will be looked at in greater detail during the second stage of the

research.

The vast majority of responding TES (94%) feel that Traveller children, on average,

are not receiving an education suited to their ages, aptitudes, abilities and any

special needs they may have.

Traveller parents often use EHE as an ‘escape route’ out of formal education

and that very little formal education is provided. A lack of basic skills among

parents was also often cited.

who would be on the SEN register if they were at school.

(usually moderate or low-level rather than specific or severe).

children with statements of SEN. Most of these children have statements for

some form of learning difficulty.

support from formal organisational structures, 3 TESs said no support had

been received.

contacts, private tutors and joining Education Otherwise.

Housed 150 32%

Caravan/trailer dwelling 312 68%

How many EHE Traveller families had other children at a local

school

128 28%

It is very interesting to note that nearly a third of Traveller children registered with

EHE are sedentary in housing. This is a very significant development given the rapid

growth in numbers over the last four years and the estimated total number of

19

‘housed’ Travellers nationally. It would seem from the data within this table that a

third of families are able to manage both school attendance and EHE for their

different children within the family and this may well be that younger children go to

primary school and then move to EHE once they approach and or reach secondary

age.

have ever taken public examinations. For example: “Many of the students

who have opted out of LA provision do not feel the need to have their

curriculum validated by statutory and national tests”.

inappropriate curriculum, entering examinations was often not realistic for

these pupils and a further 4 stated that EHE Traveller families place little

importance on formal qualifications.

mentioned that work experience was minimal for this group and often linked

to their community. Four (4) TESs also mentioned difficulties with accessing

Connexions and/or Personal Advisers for these groups.

fixed ideas in the families about what work boys and girls would do in life.

issues.

conventions, enshrines the rights of parents, guardians or legal carers to choose the

educating their own children either themselves or through the employment of tutors.20

These rights are subject to compliance with a set of legal conditions which in the

main place a responsibility on parents to ensure that their children receive an efficient

and suitable education. A ‘suitable’ education is defined as one that “primarily equips

a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of

life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options in

later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so”.. The law also

secures the right that the education that children receive is in accordance with the

wishes of their parents so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient

instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.21

Education Act 1996.

persons to have access to their children. The onus of responsibility is on parents to request a CRB Basic

Disclosure check if they so choose.

21 Section 9 of the Education Act 1996.

20

In addition, local education authorities are seen as responsible for ensuring that

parents comply with this requirement.

required to notify their LA if they decide to withdraw the child and educate her/him at

home. In the case of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller children, a school may see the

‘without notice’ withdrawal of a child as linked to the family’s legitimate nomadic

lifestyle and so may not automatically notify other agencies within the authority or log

this with the national child Information Sharing Index database.

time. It is to be noted that if a child has never been registered with a school, then

there is no duty on the parent to notify the LA if they decide to educate, or arrange to

have educated, the child(ren) at home. This situation could again be problematic in

relation to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families in that many children start school late

and so it is possible that many children from these backgrounds at any age within

Key Stages 1 and 2 could start their education at home with no duty on the parent to

notify the appropriate authorities.

education of their children have taken such a decision on legitimate grounds that

reflect particular value and belief systems linked to culture or religious/faith

conviction. In a number of cases, these motivations may be fortified by a judgement

that available schools will be unable to deliver the right values and orientation of

knowledge to meet the children’s assessed needs and parental ambitions; that local

and or acceptable provision may be too distant from the home, and or the child

refuses or is exceedingly unwilling to go to school.

to elect to educate at home. Some Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families fear ‘cultural

erosion’. Other decisions are based on the judged irrelevance of the school

curriculum, and or the anxiety to protect their children from racist and other bullying.

Within the context of the Every Child Matters agenda there is a need for schools to

make provision that is responsive to the needs and expectations of communities. In

these latter circumstances, it could be argued that the families and the children

involved are being required to pay an unreasonable price because of inflexibilities

within mainstream provision for which they are not responsible. In this situation the

rights of the victims are being undermined. For this situation not to be addressed may

result in unintentional racial discrimination against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller

minority ethnic communities.

research, provides overwhelming evidence to suggest that a very strong motivation

for families to elect for home education is the impact of racist and other bullying. A

clear message was heard at the DfES sponsored ethnic self-ascription seminars that

parents and pupils are frightened to declare their true ethnic background when

registering at a school because of the fear of racist bullying. National and

international race attitude surveys confirm that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller

communities are the most marginalised ethnic communities in Europe and this is

confirmed by the seeming ‘open season’ freedom of negative media coverage.

provision including schools. Negative attitudes thus have the potential for surfacing

among non-Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils, adults working in the school, and the

parental community.

21

Traveller communities are the most socially excluded communities in British society.

A picture is thus emerging of where the educational opportunities of whole minority

ethnic communities are being distorted by a lack of knowledge and racist bullying.

Roma and Traveller communities represent a unique case. Because of inherent

inadequacies within mainstream educational provision as listed, it could be argued

that increasing numbers of children from these communities are unjustly being

‘removed’ de facto from mainstream provision. And yet these are the communities

most ill placed to organise or deliver an efficient and suitable education for their

children. Many parents have very low level literacy skills, have limited and negative

experiences of attending school themselves and are among the least qualified to be

able to make a sound and informed judgment on the quality of the education that

they are managing to provide or organise for their children. There is little doubt that

education. As either consumers or providers parents are thus seriously

disadvantaged.22

pre-dates by many decades the more recent legislation which places very new and

rigorous demands on government and public authorities in relation to human rights,

race equality and Every Child Matters. This new robust legal context now requires a

legislative amendment to the previous weak arrangements. The DfES needs to

address the issues and take action to safeguard the interests and welfare of the very

vulnerable children in these communities, and indeed, all those children being

educated under the EHE arrangements. The demand for more rigorous legislation to

protect the child from harm and abuse has been prompted by the high profile cases

that have shocked the nation. Contemporary demographic and social profiles of the

public at large suggest that most of the abuse of children takes place within families

and the home and that there are now many more families where one of the partners

is not the biological parent of the child(ren). Gypsy/Roma and Traveller communities,

in common with all the other families registered nationally with EHE, are as

vulnerable as any other sector of society to these changed social circumstances.

Gypsy/Roma and Traveller communities have thus inadvertently highlighted these

issues and the current loopholes in the existing legislation and the identified

weaknesses in the way it is administered and enforced.

to the social exclusion of the 12 to 15 million Gypsy, Roma and Traveller

communities and their frequently marginalised status within racially segregated

ghettoes. It is increasingly realised that social isolation and exclusion is in serious

tension with good race relations and community cohesion. To allow the process as

described within this report to continue unchecked will result in the further social

isolation and structural hindrances to community integration and cohesion.

legislative process.

sets out to achieve” and a ‘suitable’ education is one that “prepares children for life in a modern

civilized society and will enable them to achieve their full potential”.

22

evidence to confirm that the serious concerns expressed by OFSTED, TESs and

other players, are fully justified in relation to a number of issues surrounding the

quality of education provided and the care and protection for Gypsy/Roma and

Traveller children (and all EHE children) when their parents have elected to educate

them at home.

resources to provide or deliver a full-time education that is efficient and suitable. And

yet the percentage of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller families who have opted for EHE is

increasing at a high rate. There may also be a possible 50% to 75% of children from

these communities opting out of secondary education. Given the research findings

about school curricular irrelevance and racist bullying, the developing situation re

EHE is a clear example of racial discrimination and social exclusion.

expectations between that of the communities and that of schools and the frequent

need to protect their children from the corrosive impact of endemic racist bullying.

the routine monitoring/inspecting of provision, nor in regard to what constitutes an

long history of the difficult relationships between the Gypsy/Roma and Traveller

communities and settled society pose a serious threat to the effective operation of

good will in these circumstances.

provision within individual families must be seen as in direct tension with child

protection considerations and the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda. For those children

who have never previously been registered with a school, there is no legal duty on

the parents to notify the appropriate authorities of their intention to provide education

at home. Parents are not legally required to notify the local education authority unless

the child is registered at a special school.24

ethnic status, are missing out on a quality education, a deprivation which will ill equip

them for their future lives within their own communities and the potential for seeking

opportunities in mainstream society at large. Choices are being closed down

irretrievably and in most cases the wishes of the children themselves are not taken

into account in the decision making process to opt for EHE.

children and to protect them from harm and abuse, it is strange that elective home

education is the only area of education and child care that is not subject to more

addition, and reflective of the same soft approach, the Guidance issued under Section 14 of the

Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000. (See also Education (Scotland) Act 1980 Section 37(2).

“There is no express requirement in the 1980 Act for education authorities to investigate actively

whether or not parents are complying with their Section 30 duty”.

24 See DfES EHE Guidance.

23

rigorous statutory regulation concerned with quality assurance and accountability.

The existing legislation is essentially only concerned with parents’ rights and may

now be judged as inadequate to protect the educational rights and to safeguard the

welfare of children.

quality education irrespective of provider, and the safeguarding of the care and

protection of children from possible harm and abuse, parliamentary legislation is

required.

educated at home and those wishing to elect for home education in the future.

a) a standardised national system of registration be implemented by each

local education authority in terms of assessment criteria;

monitoring/inspection visits; and the time sequence related to these events

b) the wishes of children are established and taken into account in the

assessment process.

d) a clear curriculum entitlement is defined which is broad and balanced.

e) all children to be registered (irrespective of whether they have ever been

registered with a school), and that all children registered under EHE are seen

initially and in the teaching and learning situation on a regular basis defined in

law and a standard format for post visit reports and their distribution

f) all children registered under EHE are assessed on a regular basis in

relation to expectations of educational progress.

g) that a timetable be established and defined in relation to the procedures

incumbent on local authorities pursuant to assessment judgements of the

provision being unsuitable.

h) parents and secondary aged children have the right of appeal at any

decision by the appropriate authorities in regard to an application and

continuance of elected home education.

together with an initial and periodic national training programme.

assessment of the quality of the assessment and monitoring/inspection functions in

relation to elective home education and to report on their findings.

based on a modified version of the requirements for the inspection of independent

schools under Section 162a.25

that the cycle of prejudice is broken down, racist bullying tackled and the educational

needs and aspirations of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller communities are taken into

account within maintained schools.

implementation of the new legislation.

25 The Education Act 2002, Section 162a.

24

considerably lower than the average for all pupils in maintained schools in all

subjects. However, there are small numbers recorded (as parents and

children fear racial prejudice) in these 2 ethnic groups (although the number

of KS1 pupils identified within these categories has increased slightly since

2004).

since 2004 by between 1 and 2 percentage points. However, the results for

the Gypsy/Roma group have, on average, decreased by around 1 to 3

percentage points since 2004.

expected level in KS1 Maths, this percentage increased to 52% in

2005. However, the corresponding figures for Gypsy Roma pupils

decreased from 64% in 2004 to 62% in 2005.

pupils and the average for all pupils in maintained schools has

widened since 2004 for Gypsy/Roma pupils but narrowed for Traveller

of Irish Heritage pupils.

25

considerably below the average for all pupils in maintained schools in each

subject. In English and Maths only just over a quarter of Traveller of Irish

Heritage pupils and around a third of Gypsy/Roma pupils achieve the

expected level compared to at least three quarters of all pupils. As with Key

Stage 1 there are small numbers of pupils in these ethnic groups at the end of

KS2 and the numbers of pupils in these categories have decreased slightly

since 2004.

• However, there is evidence of improvements for these groups:

expected level for all subjects increased from 2004 to 2005, in English

and Maths by 3 percentage points and in Science by 1 percentage

point.

level in each subject in 2005 than in 2004. The increases for this

group in each subject were the highest increases for any of the ethnic

groups (with the exception of the unclassified group). For example,

the % of pupils reaching the expected level in English increased by 7

percentage points, and by 8 percentage points in Maths and Science.

pupils in maintained schools has narrowed since 2004 in all 3

subjects.

since 2003. Traveller of Irish Heritage and the Gypsy/Roma groups have the

highest increases of 3 and 5 percentage points.

Caribbean, Black Other and Pakistani pupils made less progress from KS1-2

on average than the average for all pupils, given their levels of prior

attainment. However, KS1-2 progress for these groups was greater this year

than in 2004.

minority ethnic groups, with the exception of Gypsy/Roma and

White/Asian pupils where Boys perform better than Girls in Science.

Traveller of Irish Heritage, Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups where the

gap between boys and girls is between 3 and 4 percentage points

compared to an average of 1 percentage point for all pupils. White/Black

African, Black Caribbean and Black African boys are all performing less

well than girls.

26

considerably below the average for all pupils in maintained schools in each

subject. In 2005 fewer than 30% of pupils in each of these groups are

achieving the expected level in each subject compared to a national average

of 70% or more. As with Key Stage 1 and 2, there are small numbers of

pupils in these ethnic groups (the numbers of pupils in the Traveller of Irish

Heritage group at the end of KS3 has increased since 2004 whilst the number

in the Gypsy/Roma group has increased).

group, this is not the case for the Traveller of Irish Heritage group:

has increased for Gypsy/Roma pupils since 2004 but decreased for

Traveller of Irish Heritage between 2004 and 2005.

percentage of pupils achieving the expected level in each subject of

any of the ethnic groups. In 2005 the percentage of Gypsy/Roma

pupils achieving the expected level increased by 10 percentage points

in English (compared to 4 percentage points for all pupils on average),

by 4 percentage points in Maths and by 6 percentage points in

Science.

pupils in maintained schools has narrowed since 2004 in all 3

subjects.

only group to see a decrease in the percentage of pupils reaching the

expected levels.

these pupils and the average for all pupils in maintained schools has

widened since 2004 in all 3 subjects.

attainment in all subjects, with the exception of the Gypsy/Roma and

Traveller of Irish heritage groups whose attainment has decreased in

all subjects compared to 2003.

groups, with the exception of White/Black African, Pakistani and Other

White pupils. Boys perform better than girls in Science for White/Black

African pupils and in Maths for Pakistani and Other White pupils.

girls out perform boys in English with higher differences ranging from 21%

points to 13% points.

27

below the average for all pupils in maintained schools, especially the former

group, only 15% of whom achieved 5A*-C grades, compared to 23% of

Traveller of Irish Heritage pupils and 55% of all pupils on average.

GCSE and equivalent in 2005 than in 2004. There was approximately

7 percentage points difference between the % achieving 5A*-C grades

at GCSE and equivalent in 2004 (13.5%) and 2005 (14.7%). However,

the results for Gypsy/Roma pupils increased by 1 percentage point

from last year.

and the average for all pupils in maintained schools continues to

widen between 2004 and 2005.

than achieve the same benchmark in any subject. On average there is a

difference of 12 percentage points between these benchmarks. The extent of

this difference does not vary much between different ethnic groups but

generally follows a similar pattern to the results for 5+A*-C in any subject.

above the average for all pupils achieving 5A*-C including English and

Maths.

pupils with only 9% of Gypsy/Roma pupils achieving 5A*-C including

English and Maths and only 27% of Black Caribbean pupils achieving

this target.

value added scores (and therefore made the least progress) of any of the

ethnic groups.

entered for GCE/VCE A/AS exams.

28

The term ‘Traveller’ has been used to describe a wide variety of cultural and ethnic

groups which either are, or have been, traditionally associated with a nomadic

lifestyle. The term has become a kind of shorthand for all these different groups but

its continued use is now considered by many to be unhelpful and potentially

discriminatory in character. The term ‘Traveller’ started to be adopted in the generic

sense in the 1960s to avoid the use of the derogatory references at that time to

heterogeneous groups was more for the benefit of officialdom than to oblige any

expressed self ascription wishes within the different communities themselves. Given

the legal terminology surrounding the minority ethnic status of the two main groups,

‘Gypsy/Roma and Travellers of Irish heritage’, and the need to be inclusive while at

the same time both respectful of felt and perceived cultural differences, and the need

for manageable semantic drafting, it would seem that the most appropriate

heritage descriptions either ascribed or self-ascribed and these include nonderogatory

words as such: Gypsies, Romany, Romany Gypsies, Travellers,

Traditional Travellers, Romanichals, Romanichal Gypsies, Scottish

Travellers/Gypsies, Nawkens, Welsh Gypsies/Travellers, Kale and Roma. Although

the European Union has accepted that the term ‘Roma’ is generally acceptable in

collectively describing all European Gypsies, there are of course many different

groups which may have geographical/territorial associations and are ascribed and or

self-ascribed as such (non-definitive list): Vlach Rom, Rom, Kalderash, Manouche,

Sinte, Tattare, Kaale, Cale, Lavari, Ursari, Boyhas, and Luri. Millions of Gypsy/Roma

people speak the Romani language, making it one of the principal minority languages

of Europe. Romani is an Indic language, closely related to modern Hindi, which

developed in the European diaspora under the influence of a number of other

languages, most notably Byzantine Greek. There are over a hundred dialects of

Romani and although in the past there have been efforts to deny the legitimacy of

Romani as a language, with some scholars classifying it as a form of jargon, there is

now broad consensus among linguists as to the wealth and unity of the Romani

some Gypsy families. This is certainly the case with most Eastern and Central

European Roma.28

Travellers with an Irish heritage. These are either ascribed and or self-ascribed and

activists over the years to ensure that the correct spelling with capital letters is common practice.

Complaints on this issue to Hansard were always responded to by passing the buck to Chambers

Dictionary usage. Chambers has now finally agreed to use the spelling ‘Gypsy’ with a ‘y’ and not an

‘i’, and also to use capital letters for Gypsy and Traveller. Hansard has indicated that it will now make

the necessary changes. It is also to be noted that the tabloid press appear to continue to practice and

wilfully reinforce cultural and ethnic disrespect by using lower case letters and incorrect spelling

despite many supplications.

Families/Communities, Circus Families/Communities, New Traveller Families/Communities and

people living on boats – Bargee/Boat Families/Communities, without structural terminological and

inaccurate links to the two distinct minority ethnic communities also included.

28 See “Romani: A Linguistic Introduction”, Yaron Matras. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

29

include as such: Minceir, Travellers, Travelling People, and Travellers of Irish

heritage. Travellers of Irish heritage speak their own language known as Gammon,

sometimes referred to as ‘Cant’ and which is a language with many Romani loanwords,

but not thought to be a dialect of Romani itself.

People and or Fairground Families/Communities. Circus Families/Communities

(frequently included within the same circus are families with a range of national and

ethnic backgrounds). Next are New Travellers, (New Age Traveller, New Age Gypsy)

Families/Communities and people living on boats – Bargee/Canal Boat and Boat

Families/Communities. Many Circus families are frequently from different countries

across the world and so English as an additional language could be an issue for

many of these children in any home education setting.