AFB0006

Written evidence submitted by the Service Children’s Progression Alliance to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

About the Service Children’s Progression Alliance

1.         The Service Children’s Progression (SCiP) Alliance is a partnership of organisations focused on improving outcomes for children from Armed Forces families. It is hosted by the University of Winchester and supported by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

2.         The SCiP Alliance’s mission is to support education practitioners to champion the progression of the children of military personnel (“Service children”), so that they can make informed and confident transitions through further and higher education into thriving adult lives and careers.

3.         The SCiP Alliance pursues this vision and mission by leading collaborative work to develop a robust evidence base, connect and support practitioners and influence the policy environment.

4.         The SCiP Alliance is working to:

• Establish and sustain an alliance of stakeholder organisations across the UK to support the progression of Service children into thriving adult lives and careers;
• Develop an effective research and practice hub network that enables the continuous improvement of practitioners’ work with and for Service children’s education and progression in local contexts; and
• Lead research and knowledge exchange activities to drive improvements in understanding, evidence and impact focused on Service children’s outcomes.

5.         To this end, work to date includes: establishing a UK-wide network of regional hubs that bring together hundreds of education, military, charity and other stakeholders to translate robust research and knowledge of the local context into coherent and impactful interventions; the development of a school improvement toolkit following the completion of independent research to identify effective approaches schools can take to enhance Service children’s educational progression; the facilitation of a year-long programme of inquiry supporting improvements in organisation’s efforts to foreground and act on Service children’s voices; the translation of Department for Education data into an online targeting tool to assist strategic planners and policymakers to improve the targeting and design of programmes of support.

6.         More information is available on the SCiP Alliance website: scipalliance.org or by contacting Philip Dent, SCiP Alliance Director (philip.dent@winchester.ac.uk).

Summary

7.         The SCiP Alliance is pleased to respond to the call for evidence on the Armed Forces Bill.  Our evidence focuses primarily on provisions relating to the Armed Forces Covenant.

8.         We broadly welcome the provision for a duty to have due regard to serving and ex-Armed Forces personnel.  However, we would call for that due regard to be explicitly extended to their families and children. We believe that the educational experiences of the children of serving people are inseparable from the experiences of service life.  Therefore, to have due regard to serving people means having due regard to the impact of service life on children’s educational progression.

9.         Given that the Armed Forces Bill, and in particular the provisions relating to the Armed Forces Covenant, have effect across the United Kingdom, we would call for a consistent approach to defining and identifying Service children.  This should include a coordinated, four-nation approach to the collection of data and monitoring of impact of the Armed Forces Covenant.  This would be based on a broad and inclusive definition of Service children that recognises the persistent impact of service life upon children's educational progression.

10.     We welcome the inclusion of schools and further education providers in the list of bodies to whom the duty to have due regard would apply.  We also call for higher education institutions and early years providers to be included, so that the child’s entire education life-course is supported.

11.     We also call for the duty to have due regard to be extended to all UK and devolved government bodies with policymaking responsibility that may impact on the educational experiences of Service children.  This is to ensure that policymaking remains consistent with the aims of the Armed Forces Covenant.

12.     We welcome the provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance as to the fulfilment of the duties imposed by the Bill.  In the field of education, we believe there is demand for clear guidance as to the fulfilment of such duties, but call for such guidance to be developed urgently and consulted on widely, so that the considerable professional experience and academic evidence in the sector can help ensure its efficacy in practice and impact on Service children’s lives.

Responses to specific consultation questions

Is the ‘duty to have due regard’ the appropriate mechanism to further incorporate the Armed Forces Covenant into law?  What alternative mechanisms could be used?

13.     The SCiP Alliance broadly welcomes the principle that public bodies must have due regard to the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant.  This would appear to be consistent with other forms of statutory guidance in other fields (such as special educational needs/additional learning needs).

14.     We note that paragraphs 343 AA (1), 343 AB (1), 343 AC (1) and 343 AD (1) refer to current and former service people, but not the families of current and former service people.  The scope of the Armed Forces Covenant extends to the families of Service personnel[1], so we would call for families to be explicitly reflected in the scope of due regard to its principles.

Is the focus on healthcare, education, and housing matters appropriate? Could this have a detrimental impact on other areas of the Armed Forces Covenant?

15.     The SCiP Alliance welcomes the particular focus on education matters.  We recognise that the experiences of service personnel and their families can be complex and are therefore irreducible to narrowly-defined issues.  We therefore believe that education matters are inseparable from the range of experiences that characterise the lives of service families.

16.     As noted, we believe that the principle of due regard to the experiences of serving people should be extended to their families.  The children of current and former service personnel can experience a range of factors associated with the fact of service that could potentially impede their progression through education.  We also note that concerns over their children’s education can be a factor for serving personnel in determining whether or not to remain in the services.

17.     Evidence also suggests a complex interplay of factors impacting on Service children’s educational progression, which relate to formal and informal conceptions of education, social and emotional development supported by opportunities outside of formal education settings and services[2] that may be beyond the scope of the bodies named in the Bill. As such, the Bill risks enabling an imbalanced approach to the provision of support through an overly-narrow extent of its scope. It may also lead to a reduction in the levels of support where existing voluntary service provision extends beyond the legislative requirements.  Both eventualities would likely limit the impact of the Armed Forces Covenant for children and families.

18.     In exercising due regard for the Armed Forces Covenant we would encourage the Government to give a clear steer as to who is a Service child.  We argue that the effects of Service life upon Service children can persist beyond the immediate period of service, including into adulthood[3].  Therefore, given the range of responsibilities of the bodies that we argue should fall under the scope of having due regard, we would call for a broad and inclusive definition of Service children that reflects the impact of Service life on the educational life course.  This definition should be developed in conjunction with stakeholders in the sector.

Are the specified persons and bodies proscribed [sic] in the Bill sufficient or should these be expanded?

19.     We welcome the scope of the specified persons in the Bill, but would suggest that higher education institutions (HEIs) and early years providers are also included.  Analysis by the SCiP Alliance has identified 71 HEIs that are independent signatories to the Armed Forces Covenant[4].  However, relatively few of these make reference to the children of service personnel in their commitments.  We recognise that other HEIs may also be joint signatories, for example in partnership with their local authorities. 

20.     We have also identified 38 HEIs in England that have specific provisions relating Service children in their Access and Participation Plans[5].  This represents around 23 per cent of providers registered with the Office for Students.  This demonstrates an increased focus on equity of access and participation for Service children.  However, we also know that Service children can be found in almost every locality in England[6], and thus fall within the ambit of every HEI.  We therefore suggest that HEIs have a crucial role to play in supporting Service children’s progression through education.

21.     We welcome the inclusion of further education institutions on the list.  Comparatively little is known about the experiences of Service children in further education, mainly due to the absence of concerted data collection across the sector.

22.     We also argue that, in addition to local authorities, the duty to have due regard should extend to all UK and devolved government bodies that make policy that impact the educational experiences of Service children.  The absence of UK and devolved governments and departments from the specified bodies in the Bill limits the reach of its provision and risks weakening the impact of the Covenant, for example by enabling policymaking that contradicts the aims of the Covenant. The delineation of responsibilities in the Bill between, for example, local government and schools (included in the specified bodies) and the Department for Education in England (not included in the specified bodies) does not recognise the importance of all parts of the support system working coherently to fulfil the promise of the Covenant. This risks a fragmentary approach to the provision of support.

An assessment of the power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the duties imposed by the Bill.

23.     We welcome the provisions for the Secretary of State to issue guidance, and we note that the wording appears to give this the force of statutory guidance.  Research commissioned by the SCiP Alliance[7] evidenced a strong desire among stakeholders for good quality information on effective evidence-based practice.  We therefore believe that a clear steer on the fulfilment of the duties imposed by the Bill would be welcomed across the sector.

24.     We would also draw attention to the range of advice and guidance that already exists in the field of education and the organisations engaged in its production.  For example, the SCiP Alliance has worked with the Office for Students to prepare guidance for HEIs on the experience of Service children[8].  We will continue to work with stakeholders across the sector[9] to support the capacity of educators to understand and respond to the needs of Service children.  UCAS has prepared guidance for universities and colleges regarding veterans and their families[10].  In England, Service Children in State Schools (SCISS) has developed guidance for maintained schools around admissions, mobility, special educational needs, deployment and separation[11].  In Wales, SSCE Cymru produces data and good practice guidance to support school practice[12].  In Scotland, the Royal Caledonian Education Trust offers advice, guidance and training to educators and other stakeholders[13].  We would therefore urge the Secretary of State to engage closely and concertedly with the range of stakeholders in the field of education in developing such statutory guidance and to do so swiftly, since the Bill leaves to this provision much of the further clarity needed within the legislation.

Whether the provisions impact differently on Serving personnel (both Regulars and Reservists), veterans, and their families?

25.     It is our view that the experiences of Service children and their potential to impact upon their education warrant the explicit recognition of Service children in the Bill.  To have due regard to serving people, we suggest, requires due regard to the experiences of their families.

26.     Service children do not always fit with common indicators of risk of exclusion, such as deprivation.  However, Service children progress to higher education at lower rates than their non-disadvantaged peers[14] [15].  An intersection of factors, some of which are specific to the experiences of service family life, is likely to impact on Service children’s progression through education. 

27.     It is important to note that the experiences of Service children can vary according to factors such as the rank, role and branch of service of the serving person, the operational demands of the services, geopolitical events, differences in the level and quality of support through education and so forth.  Therefore, Service children are not a homogeneous group.

28.     Mobility and transition are key challenges.  Children who move schools more frequently are less likely to reach the expected standard at the end of Key Stage 2[16].  Repeated mobility can have impacts both on children’s attainment and their emotional wellbeing, and schools have identified transition as being a significant challenge for Service children[17].

29.     Family separation can also present particular challenges.  The Naval Families Federation[18] notes that family separation can take a range of forms, including planned deployment, ‘weekending’ or working away during the week for extended periods, and separation for training purposes.  The length and nature of the separation can impact differently upon children.  During a period of absence, children may take on additional household responsibility, such as caring for siblings.  Their sense of loyalty to the family may lead them to avoid letting others know if they are struggling. This can lead to children missing out on opportunities to enjoy the extra-curricular activities that are important for wellbeing and progression.

30.     Service children develop a range of positive traits through their association with service life[19].  They can demonstrate qualities such as resilience, determination, pride and adaptability[20].  However, the “service first” ethos of service life can imply a lack of agency.  This can be manifested in experiences such as frequent relocation, disruption to friendship networks and supportive adult relationships, and the loss of access to educational and extra-curricular activities. Combined with the inevitable demands of study, may contribute to phenomena such as lower attainment post-16[21].

31.     It would also be wrong to assume that the potential benefits that may be accrued by Service children through their experiences, including the immense pride many take in their parents’ service, are automatically protective.  Research by North Yorkshire County Council[22] suggests that students from armed forces families, compared with their peers, may be: more likely to experience bullying at or near school; more likely to have been offered or have taken drugs; less likely to intend to continue in full time education after Year 11; and less likely to think that their schools encourage everyone to treat each other with respect. 

32.     The Children’s Society[23] notes the potential impacts upon the wellbeing of Service children who have caring responsibilities.  This can include caring for: a veteran parent with physical or mental health needs; a non-serving parent affected by illness or disability; or a sibling or other family member.  Children who have caring responsibilities are more likely to report mental health difficulties, poorer general health, and have worse academic outcomes.  Crucially, analyses of young carers often do not capture ‘hidden’ young carers, such as those caring for someone affected by alcohol misuse or the impact of domestic abuse.

33.     The children of service personnel and veterans can therefore experience a range of effects upon their education.  These effects can continue beyond the period of service.  We therefore believe that it would be proportionate to expect education providers to have due regard to the impact of service life upon their children.

March 2021

Written evidence submitted to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill