Education policy formed a notable part of the Conservative Party’s conference last week in Manchester, but two key announcements have question marks hanging over them already. The first is the plan to dock child benefit from parents who refuse to pay fines for their children’s truancy. The second is the plan to give parents the right to demand that their local school offers childcare for the “full working day”.
Docking child benefit
Currently, parents can be fined £60 if their children are truanting from school. This doubles to £120 if not paid within three weeks, after which court action can be taken.
The new plan would see the £120 being docked from a family’s child benefit if the fine is not paid after four weeks.
The move has undoubtedly been sparked by the fact that around 40 per cent of parental fines currently go unpaid, but the question mark that hangs over this proposal is simple – where is the evidence to show that it will work to re-engage persistent truants with their education?
A number of commentators have already voiced their concerns that it will only serve to make difficult situations worse, especially for schools.
I agree. It will further hamper a school’s attempt to engage with parents and could end up harming the children, many of whom will be facing serious challenges in their lives.
As such, this policy must be implemented with care and must not become a one-size-fits-all approach.
Students truant for all manner of reasons, many of which are often out of their control or for which they often need intervention and help. Families also fail to prevent this truancy for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, if a family is not paying truancy fines because they simply cannot afford to, then docking their child benefit could only serve to punish the child.
Yes, the child may be persistently truanting – but punishment of this nature will in no way give schools and local authorities the best platform from which to try to re-engage with the family and the child to get them back into school.
The NAHT’s Russell Hobby said this week that this kind of approach “rarely leads to long-term resolution” and makes things harder for the young person. I agree. Effective education and engagement with young people is about relationships and trust – I fear this policy will build neither. As Mr Hobby said: “This plan from the government won’t help schools resolve issues with families, it will drive a wedge between them.”
Schools to offer childcare
A classic “vote-winning” proposal if ever there was one. The policy on childcare, unveiled by education secretary Nicky Morgan, will mean that if enough parents in a local area demand it, schools will have to consider offering childcare.
As ever, details are sketchy (and have probably not been fully formed within the Department for Education either), but its seems that if a certain number of parents make the request of their local school, then that school will be expected “to take reasonable steps to accommodate it, in a way that works for them”, to quote Ms Morgan.
The childcare will have to be full working day cover, including during school holidays, Ms Morgan added – a very tall order.
To be fair, a number of schools already offer this for their communities, so it is not that outrageous a suggestion. Ms Morgan also used the words “in a way that works for them”, and this part of the policy will be key. However, the journey to compulsion never seems to take this government long (just look at the EBacc) and that has to be a key danger.
School leaders are, quite rightly, concerned. The main fears, as ever, centre around the unanswered questions that headline-grabbing policy announcements always create.
What exactly are “reasonable steps”? How would this childcare be funded? Would it be free childcare? Or would a commercial or paid-for operation be acceptable? If it’s paid-for, will all parents be able to afford it? Does it have to be on the school site? Or are partnerships with local childcare providers acceptable?
A key question is of course the budget. Schools are facing extreme budgetary pressures, including a difficult recruitment environment. If headteachers now need to fund childcare facilities and staff those facilities, it could prove a cost too far for many. A second vital question: what would happen if a school refuses to provide these facilities. Would this decision be respected?
Schools, of course, must concern themselves with wider societal issues, playing their part in tackling problems such as abuse, obesity or cyber-bullying – in partnership with other agencies. However, does offering childcare fall into this “wider benefit” category? I am not convinced.
Ultimately, schools are schools. Their core goal is to provide an effective education for their children. Ministers should remember this when coming up with their latest initiatives.
- Pete Henshaw is the editor of SecEd and has been writing about secondary education for more than 10 years. Email editor@sec-ed.co.uk and follow him on Twitter @pwhenshaw