10/1/2025
You’re probably fed up of trying to understand the legal jargon, and the political process, and tired from appearing to always be fighting for home education. We have more fight in us, and we hope you do too as more work needs to be done.
DO NOT DELAY TAKING ACTION AS WE HAVE UNTIL EARLY FEBRUARY TO GET OUR COMMUNICATIONS IN.
At the bottom of this article you can look back through our other articles, these discuss some of the bill in great detail.
Many MPs had their say about the proposed bill, and some stood up for home educators. The Children’s Wellbeing and schools bill has moved to the next stage (albeit around a third of MPs who voted, voted against it), this doesn’t mean the law has changed, we are still a long way from that. What is means is it now gets rejigged and reworded. But the only way the government will know what to change is if both you and your MP informs them of what needs changing. The scrutiny committee also need to hear from you, they need to know the impact of the current wording and what needs changing.
2 things you need to do.
Write to your MP (3 parts as detailed below)
AND
Write to the scrutiny committee (you can jump to this section though ideally you should write to your MP as well)
Writing to your MP will include three parts.
Below is a copy of what each MP said relating to home education.
Bridget Philipson
…a new compulsory register of children not in school in every area of England, because if children are not in school, we need to know where they are… I respect parents’ rights to make choices about their child’s education, but children’s safety must always come first, and under this Government, their safety will always come first.
Bridget seems to be confused, the bill talks about a CNIS register, but the proposal only includes details of home educators, nothing about CME. We know where home educated children are, they’re being home educated and most already known to the LA and on a register.
Is she implying home educating parents don’t put their child’s safety first?
Helena Dollimore – (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome the measures in the Bill to ensure that the many children being home-schooled have all the support they need to get back into mainstream education. I was extremely concerned to find out that in the last academic year, 800 children in Hastings were being home-schooled—that is one in 16 children, or 27 classrooms of children. While there will be parents providing a good-quality education at home, I know from speaking to teachers and to local shops who see these children in their establishments that some are not necessarily getting a good education. We need to get those children back into school.
She appears to be conflating children missing education with home educated children. Home educated children can be out in the day, their education is not reliant on school hours or term times. Since when were teachers or local shops in a position to decide if a home educated child is getting a good quality education.
Children missing education need to be in education, home educated children do not need to be in school.
Bridget Philipson
I recognise the challenge that she faces in her constituency and that we see right across our country. We have seen a big increase in the number of children being home-educated. While I respect the right of parents to make that choice—there is a complex range of reasons why many parents are now making that decision, and there are questions about how we support our children with their mental health and wider challenges on the SEND system—let me be absolutely clear to the House that all children not in school, when they are being home-educated, must have a good level of education. We cannot allow the situation to continue where we do not have visibility of where children are and they slip between the cracks. We will ensure through the Bill that when a child protection investigation is under way or there is a child protection plan, local authorities will be able to decline that request from parents, because we all sadly know what can go terribly wrong when we fail to step in and protect children.
Does she know the bills wording? It doesn’t require support of any child if the LA deem it not to be ‘fit’. Home educated children are not slipping through the cracks, the EHE team knows about them, it is their fault if they lose their data.
Munira Wilson – Liberal Democrat for Twickenham,
…our party firmly upholds the right of parents to educate their children at home when it is the best choice for their child. In 99% of cases a parent knows what is best for their child, but it is deeply concerning that there may be many thousands of children whose whereabouts are simply unknown. That reality can contribute, as we have seen all too recently, to tragic safeguarding failures, and that cannot continue.
Where is the evidence for this claim?
Graham Stuart – Conservative for Beverley and Holderness
Can the hon. Lady provide a single instance where a child who was in home education—we must remember that children at school spend about 86% of their time out of school—who was at harm was not known to social services already? Too easily there is a conflation of a failure of social services, which needs to be fixed, with home education, which is entirely separate.
If you are in Graham Stuart’s constituency send him a simple thank you, he has had home educators backs for decades. He knows what is wrong with the bill, so needs nothing more than a thank you and appreciation of his support moving forwards.
Munira Wilson
All the evidence points to the fact that the education and schools sector must be a key safeguarding partner, which is why it is in the Bill. When a child has been identified as being at risk, ensuring that they are in school, which the Bill seeks to do, will help to safeguard them. We saw this all too tragically in the recent case of Sara Sharif: she was taken out of school and then abused at home, and tragically died.
Munira seems confused about the current process of deregistration, yes Sara was deregistered, but school and SS knew she was being abused and nothing was done. EHE had a duty to protect her as they should have been made aware of the safeguarding concerns. Current legislation would have protected her if used correctly!!
Graham Stuart.
She was being abused anyway.
Munira Wilson
The point is that this is just an additional measure to ensure that children like her are safe. I want to reiterate to colleagues across the House that we absolutely support and champion the right of parents to home-educate. This is not an attack on home education; it is about ensuring that all children are safe. That is the view of the Children’s Commissioner, the National Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children and many other organisations, and in fact parties across the House. The Conservatives themselves started to legislate for this in the last Parliament but then binned the provision. There is cross-party consensus on this measure.
There are areas of detail that we need to dig into during the Bill’s progress, but in headline terms, the register is a crucial tool in the armoury that we give local authorities to ensure that our children are safe. As I have said, it has been called for by many organisations and all parties. However, the volume of information requested from parents places a significant and potentially intrusive burden on those who choose to home-educate for the right reasons, so we must ensure that data collection is strictly necessary and proportionate and is being used appropriately.
Clause 24 sets out the cases in which parents and carers must seek permission to withdraw children from school. I would question the inclusion of children placed in special schools. When there are safeguarding concerns about a child, the local authorities should be able to step in to ensure that they receive their education at school. However, some children’s needs will not be met in the special schools in which they are placed, and parents may feel that they have no option but to home-educate. In such cases, should not the presumed options be to improve the child’s experience of the school or to work with the family to secure alternative provision, rather than using the blunt instrument of clause 24?
Thankfully she appears to understand that the current wording is excessive.
Albeit a register is not needed at all as LAs already keep a register, they just need to use the current legislation properly.
Gideon Amos -(Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and balanced case for protecting children. Many children with mental health problems and autism are educated at home because there is no realistic alternative. Does she agree that the Secretary of State should be encouraged to ensure that the support given to home-educating families under clause 25 includes free access to examinations, which can cost hundreds of pounds? Children are struggling to benefit from a good home education because of the cost. Does my hon. Friend support that idea?
Exams are something a lot of home educators would like financial support with. But what would the hoop jumping be to access funding? Will every LA have to offer it?
Munira Wilson
I am happy to support that. In fact, when the previous Administration introduced the schools Bill, which they then decided to bin, the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords tabled an amendment that did just that, and I am sure that we will seek to do the same this time around to help the families who choose to home-educate.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I am particularly pleased to see clause 24, which places on local authorities an obligation to have a register and visibility of every child off the school roll.
As a former local authority lead, I know that reading serious case reviews is an important part of preparation for any role, and certainly for that one. If we read those serious case reviews and stories of what can happen to some of the most vulnerable young people when they are allowed to fall off the radar and to slip through the net, and when they are left open to exploitation and abuse by some of the most evil people in our society, we can be under no illusions as to why this measure is so important. I absolutely understand why, at first reading, those who home-school might have some concerns about it, but this is absolutely not an attack on home-schooling.
The right to home-school is important, certainly at a time when inclusion and support in schools is far from what it should be for children with some of the highest needs, and it is important that that is protected. But just as every parent has the right and responsibility to do what is right for their child, we all have the right and responsibility to ensure that no child can be left vulnerable and fall between the cracks. This Bill does that, and I am incredibly proud to be standing with colleagues and supporting a measure that I know so many of us have called for in a variety of roles over the last decade.
The bill doesn’t do what he thinks it will, LAs already have registers of EHE and the proposed register does not include CME. Children fall through cracks because professionals don’t follow existing legislation. No serious case review with a home educated child happened where they were not already known to other services.
The use of home schooling!
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Gentleman have sympathy with parents who feel that they have been let down by the local authority on support for their child with special educational needs, who recognise the historical primacy of parents in determining the education of their child, and who are now seeing a piece of legislation that removes that right and says that the state, not the parent, decides whether a child can be taken out of school? We all accept that where there are safeguarding issues, action should be taken, but is the hon. Gentleman really comfortable with changing the approach for the ordinary parent after decades of it being the other way around?
Alistair Strathern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for one of his many interventions today. I am not sure I heard an apology for the state in which SEND provision was left by the previous Government, but I absolutely recognise the point that I think he is trying to make. If he reads the Bill, however, he will see a lot of assurances. In choosing to set the threshold as high as a section 47 assessment—a child protection assessment under the Children Act 1989—we have been incredibly cautious about where we have drawn the line. Some outside this House might even say we have been too cautious about where we have drawn the line, but it recognises the important balance that has to be struck here, for exactly the reason that the right hon. Gentleman alludes to.
The line ignores that a CP case can be open not because of failings by the parent, and allowing the LA to refuse deregistration in some cases could do serious harm to the child.
Nigel Farage – (Clacton) (Reform)
I have no doubt that the Bill is based on socialist dogma. It will reduce choice and competition, and take away parents’ freedom to educate at home. I am against it.
Nadia Whittome -(Nottingham East) (Lab)
Every year, around 500,000 children in this country are abused. That number is likely higher, because the vast majority of abuse is hidden. The Bill is about safeguarding them. It is about stopping vulnerable children from falling through the cracks—for example, by having a register of those who are home-schooled. It is about trying to prevent horrific crimes, such as those committed against Sara Sharif, from ever happening again. The Children’s Charities Coalition has called it “a major step forward”.
The bill and the register won’t do that though. Sara was known to services, they failed to use current legislation to protect her.
Rebecca Smith – (South West Devon) (Con)
I also wish to touch on home-schooling. I did not get home-schooled, and I do not always think that it is the best option, but for many it is the choice that they have made for their children. But it feels like this Bill a hammer to crack a nut. I fully appreciate that there is a risk of children going missing from education, and that home-schooling can be used for inappropriate reasons, but many parents, including many constituents who have written to me, have opted to home-educate and are doing an excellent job and are deeply concerned about the proposed over-regulation that they face in the Bill.
Calling it home schooling unfortunately. She makes some good points, that the bill is heavy handed. But the current legislation protects children, it is the failing of professionals that is the issue. Home educators should not be punished.
John Glen – (Salisbury) (Con)
I too had a number of representations from constituents who were concerned about the purpose behind these changes. What additional information do they elicit to the local authority when a proper education is being received? Does my hon. Friend agree that some clarity is required there, otherwise it just seems an unnecessary and intrusive intervention? Sometimes, those constituents asked questions about what the intent is behind the intervention of local authorities.
Rebecca Smith
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Bill is seeking a detailed explanation from parents of what they are planning to do at home with their children. Quite frankly, it will hinder the work that they are doing in educating those children.
Schools are probably not readily providing some of that information either.
I am concerned by the implication in the Bill that the state is better at parenting than parents themselves. The changes in the Bill directly contradict section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which affirms a parent’s legal duty to ensure that their children “receive efficient full-time education…either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”
That is important, because it underscores the principle that parents, not the state, hold primary responsibility for the education of their children, except in the minority of cases where there is harm or neglect. Let us not forget that many parents opt to home-school because the state system has failed their children. I urge caution with the provision in the Bill, which will add further stress to such parents, who have already had to fight long and hard for their children.
Sir Julian Lewis -(New Forest East) (Con)
I applaud my hon. Friend for the point that she is making. I, too, have had representations from excellent home-schooling parents. Does she think that there is a way, with reason and understanding on both sides, for a balance to be struck between the need to safeguard the right of responsible parents to home-school their children and the need to prevent the abuse of children by parents who have other, more sinister, objectives?
Apart from the misuse of home schooling, he appears to be on our side, though it should be pointed out to him that current legislation should have prevented situations where there were ‘more sinister objectives’.
Rebecca Smith
My right hon. Friend is correct. There has to be a middle ground that we could find. I suggest that we are using a hammer to crack a nut. A lot of these parents are not against having to say something about what they are doing, but to suggest that they have to give chapter and verse to their local authority, which in many cases will have failed them already—that relationship may well have broken down—feels like too much of a strike.
The requirements in the Bill therefore risk hindering families who, for legitimate reasons—often because of failures in the SEND provision that they needed—have opted to educate their children at home. I have three questions for Ministers. Will the Government confirm that the evidence base for this part of the Bill is founded on accurate data and genuine needs, which reflects the questions asked by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the potential consequences of the Bill for home-educating families and their ability to provide a tailored high-quality education, and might we inadvertently hinder them in doing that? Thirdly, will the Government work to protect the rights of home educators and prioritise the wellbeing of children over administrative convenience?
Some amazing points and a thank you is deserved. Ask what more she will do
Vikki Slade -(Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Turning to the schools part of the Bill, I am sorely disappointed that it lacks anything to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. There is no requirement for schools to be inclusive of such children, and nothing about the need for teachers to be trained in autism or social and emotional health. Previously, when challenging the Minister, I have urged more action and have been told to wait for this Bill, but if there were an Ofsted judgment, it would be “requires improvement”. When my child was pushed out of school, unable to cope full time and obviously not going to achieve the heady heights of five GCSEs and 90% attendance, we seriously considered home education. To hear your child say, “Mum, they don’t want me here” breaks your heart. The lack of accountability in academies is just not okay, so I welcome the move to bring academies more under the control of local authorities.
Home education is a right of parents, and it can be transformational for some children. My constituent Katie, who chooses to educate her children at home, has raised concerns about schools referring a family to social services if they indicate their wish to move to home education. Will the Minister confirm that it will not be possible for a school to refer a family simply because they choose to opt out? There are also concerns about the risks to parents fleeing domestic abuse when the other parent does not have any involvement, because under this Bill the register requires permission from both parents and will list both parents, which simply would not be possible in that situation. If that means that single parent families are excluded, that is simply not okay.
Finally, there is an opportunity to properly support families for whom school does not work. Proposed new section 436G, on page 55 of the Bill, talks about support, but provides none. We need parents to have the ability to access the national curriculum, free resources and free examinations.
Mrs Sarah Russell – (Congleton) (Lab)
I would like to say one or two things about the identifier system we are bringing in with this Bill. Many colleagues have referred to some horrific situations that this seeks to avoid, and to the position of children who are outside school. I want to reassure parents in my constituency that those who have chosen to home-school absolutely have my support. This is not about penalising parents who make that choice, or about restricting freedom of choice; it is about protecting children who are already identified as extremely vulnerable. I know that everyone here supports that, or I would hope they do.
We think she may be confused about the bill and what it will do. The ridiculous amount of data required from home educators will restrict freedom or choice and will not protect any children. As a child deregistered from school is already on the LA register. Current legislation protects children if used correctly. CME children are not included in the proposed register.
Sir Julian Smith -(Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
We know from our casework that the measure on a register is positive and will play a big role in ensuring that children are not lost or hidden in the system. In implementing and applying the measure, I urge the Government to consult with SEN charities and organisations, particularly organisations working with autistic kids and families. Ambitious about Autism makes the case that the register should contain more data on the profile of children not at school, disaggregated by primary need. It is vital for autistic children and families that we put on a clear footing the expectation that there will be detailed profile data, so that schools and councils can offer more tailored support in getting them back to school. Children with pathological demand avoidance require a completely different approach when it comes to negotiating school entry, and we must ensure that their needs are met with patience and understanding.
Whilst we think we understand what he is trying to get it, it isn’t going to work like that, we not require more information, the information is already known especially with those with EHCP. And not all of these children want to or should be back in school. Getting them back in school is a dangerous stance.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend will be aware that although many home-educated children with autism are known to local authorities, there is very poor support for them. How will this burdensome, expensive register—it will be even more expensive if he has his way—transform the support that children need, rather than being just another bureaucratic exercise that continues the current woeful level of support?
Sir Julian Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, but I make clear my support for the register.
The other aspect to having more rules and regulation for families of autistic children is the inadvertent risk of penalising those families through fines and the imposition of stricter rules, which will obviously add to the harm and stress that they often face. I urge Ministers and civil servants to reflect on that. Why should those parents be fined if they are doing all they can to get their children into school?
Even more problematic is the fact that for autistic kids, the clearer, firmer and harsher rules—even with all the good intent that I believe there is—can add further trauma and make school entry even more difficult.
Autism is often at the centre of school refusal and non-attendance. As the Bill progresses through the House and into implementation, looking at these measures with the autistic child front of mind will not only transform the school experience of children and families, but in my view help address the core goal of the measures to improve school attendance.
Whilst we appreciate his passion for supporting autistic children, the school system is not a quick fix, and he appears to forget that home educating is often something people want to do, they don’t want their children back in school. Pushing from that approach is not helpful,
John Whitby – (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
In my limited time, I want to mention three measures that I am particularly pleased with. There are around 112,000 children currently being educated at home. Parents choose that route for a number of reasons, and I am comfortable that in most cases the decision to home-educate is taken with the child’s best interests in mind. However, there are those who choose to home-educate when difficult questions start to be asked by concerned professionals who are in regular contact with the child. As a foster carer of 25 years, I have seen the consequences of those families managing to avoid the spotlight for far too long by moving house, moving school and avoiding scrutiny.
The Bill is therefore immensely positive for those particularly vulnerable children. It will mean that authorities will know where children are and they can be better monitored through the creation of the register. Children going through section 47 action can have an application to be educated at home refused by the local authority. It is worth saying, however, that parents who are home-educating children with no issues have nothing to be concerned about—I heard the Secretary of State say that just yesterday.
The enormous amount of data required from home educators is a real concern, it will limit the styles of home education they can follow. Urge him to look at the wording and the impact it will actually have. CME are not included in the proposed register.
Sarah Smith -(Hyndburn) (Lab)
The legacy of the previous Government is that home education, which has only recently been properly counted year on year, has risen in the last 12 months from 92,000 to 112,000, but post covid, it has probably doubled or tripled. That reflects the fact that the system is not working for far too many parents, because it is not inclusive and does not meet their needs, and the changes to the curriculum have limited young people, who have different abilities, being able to prove their strengths and be valued in the classroom. That is not to mention the failures in SEND, and the urgent change that we know that we need to meet the significant support needs of some young people.
My experience of tackling educational disadvantage in the most disadvantaged communities is that, when we take a place-based approach, the reality of competition incentivises schools in some parts of an area to off-roll and not be inclusive, because if they want to seek an outstanding rating from Ofsted, the best way to do that is to get rid of the more difficult children. If they just implement the Michaela approach, children with autism and other more complex needs do not thrive in the same way within those structures and requirements. Parents therefore have to take them out of the school, either because they see their child’s mental health issues and choose to, or because the school forces them to do so. That has to change, which is why I welcome the reforms that the Government are bringing forward.
The bill will do nothing to support home educators, it will require extensive information from them, with no benefit. Children forced out of school needs addressing, the bill does not do that.
Matt Bishop -(Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Following my earlier policing career and before entering this place, I worked as an education welfare officer in a large secondary school in the Forest of Dean. I saw at first hand the impact of a disrupted education. The covid-19 pandemic only exacerbated those challenges, and more and more children are missing school for a number of reasons. Vulnerable students were hit hardest, further deepening existing inequalities felt within the education system. The disruption to their education was not just academic, though; it poses pastoral problems. We have a system where parents can choose to home-educate without any checks or scrutiny, and that can lead to a crisis of safeguarding as children are often unaccounted for during this time. Let me be clear: I am not saying that home education and every single school absence are safeguarding concerns, but having dealt with some horrific safeguarding cases in my previous careers, I am sure the House will agree that even one safeguarding case is one too many and that we should all be doing something to ensure the safety of our children.
Currently, there is no legal requirement for parents to inform local authorities if their child is being home-schooled, and that lack of oversight leaves children at risk as their needs and safety may be overlooked. The Bill aims to address those oversights by introducing a requirement for children educated outside of school to be registered with local authorities.
When deregistered from school the EHE team can make enquiries. School or EHE can make referral to SS if necessary. There is no requirement to inform the LA as school do that. LAs already keep registers. Respectfully his personal experience appears to be from services failing to use their existing legal powers.
Graham Stuart
Can the hon. Member give a single case of a home-educated child being harmed who was not already known to social services? Again and again, it is a failure of social services when notified, not the absence of a burdensome register for parents, who often home-educate their children out of desperation.
Matt Bishop
During my previous careers in the police and in education, there were cases. I will not say individual names in the House, but I am more than happy to liaise with the right hon. Member and his colleagues outside the Chamber about cases I have dealt with.
He appears to be confused between EHE and CME, CME is not actually being addressed in the bill.
Mr Forster
Does the hon. Member agree that the case of Sara Sharif showed that her father and stepmother used this home-schooling loophole to withdraw her from school because signs were being noticed, and that this new legislation could have protected her and should protect others?
Current legislation if used properly would have protected her.
Matt Bishop
I wholeheartedly agree, and that is exactly what I have dealt with over many years before joining this place.
The Bill aims to address the oversights by introducing that requirement for children educated outside of school to be registered with the local authorities. That simple step will ensure better tracking and safeguarding of children, helping us guarantee that all children, especially those educated outside of traditional systems, are accounted for and supported.
From now on, no child will be forgotten, invisible or left behind.
Home educated children are already registered, Sara was known to the LA, the LA failed her. The bill wouldn’t have changed that.
Monica Harding -(Esher and Walton) (LD)
The tragic death of Sara Sharif in my county of Surrey serves as a sobering reminder of the current weaknesses in the system and the consequences of not getting such an important piece of legislation right for children at risk of neglect and abuse.
As a governor during covid, when all our vulnerable children were stuck at home initially, I understand that.
The Bill is a welcome first step, but there is much more the Government can do to support children and young people. I welcome the creation of a register of children not in school, but I believe the Bill should go further. As it stands, parents will no longer have an automatic right to home-educate if their child is subject to a child protection investigation or under a child protection plan. However, I am not clear whether these provisions would have protected children such as Sara, who was previously known to social services but was not at the time of her death. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, in order to protect such children, the Bill will ensure that parents will not have an automatic right to home-educate if their child has also had a history of child protection investigation or a child protection plan, rather than if the investigation or plan is live at the time. I am also pleased with the provision compelling local authorities to share information. It took one school locally four years to track down a family who had withdrawn their child, and that family then went missing.
Current legislation if used properly would have protected her, upon receipt of the deregistration the school should have informed the EHE and SS of their concerns, SS could have applied for an emergency ruling that she must stay in school. Services failed to use existing legislation. The new bill would not have protected her as it was the summer holidays, she would have been at home anyway,
Mr Connor Rand -(Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
In a week where much has been said about protecting children, it is great to see the Government acting on the safety and wellbeing of children.
For children to be safe, they need to be visible. A situation where children can fall off the radar of the authorities tasked with protecting them is clearly unacceptable, but we know it happens. We know that in a minority of cases, children can be taken out of school and out of the protections that schools provide, and come to harm. That is why introducing a register of children not in school is such an important and common-sense measure: it is right that parents will no longer have an automatic right to home-educate if their child is subject to a child protection investigation; it is right that local authorities can identify children not in school, in order to ensure that they are safe; and it is right to introduce a unique identity number for children that facilitates information sharing by the services charged with protecting them. As the Children’s Commissioner said, writing these landmark measures into law … My final point on home education is that it is important to recognise that the steep increase in home-schooling is in part the result of parents of children with special educational needs feeling that those needs are not being met in mainstream education. It is therefore vital that the Bill runs parallel to the important work that the Government have already started at the Budget to reform and invest in a SEND system that has been severely neglected for too many years.
The register is no longer about children not in school, it is just home educators, they are already on the LA registers. Many with SEN kids end up home ed because they have to, but continue because they want to.
Amanda Martin -(Portsmouth North) (Lab)
…As a teacher for 24 years, I have seen the best in education and unfortunately, under the Conservatives, the very worst….
The relationship between many families and local authorities on home-schooling is adversarial and characterised by mistrust. That relationship must be reset. The register is vital to stop children slipping through the cracks. It is crucial that home-schooling is a clear choice and, when chosen, is not a battle between parents and local authorities. Parents must not feel they have no choice but to home-school because the previous Government dismantled SEND provision in our schools, or because children have been offloaded by some schools. We must ensure that every family who make the decision to home-school are doing so freely and with the best interests of their children at the forefront. I believe the children’s register will help provide data and understanding.
Home schooling!
Even when home education is not a choice, it does not mean it should be stopped. Yes fix schools, but not at the detriment of home educators in the mean time.
How will the register do that? When it asks burdensome questions and offers nothing of support?
Jo White -(Bassetlaw) (Lab)
For some children, home-schooling has been valuable and enabled them to be educated in surroundings where they feel safe and can achieve their very best. However, there are huge dangers and, in some cases, home-schooling has become a vehicle that have put vulnerable children at greater risk. I am concerned by seeing too many children out in the streets during school hours, with parents caught up in a generational cycle of benefit dependency and their children missing out on school because they are supposedly being home-schooled. At an early age, those children are already facing a future of living on benefits and in a black economy culture. That concern is amplified where children are being hidden, whether they are like Sara Sharif or part of extreme religious groups controlling children’s lives and welfare, in which the victims of abuse are silenced. All of us can and should support the Government’s recommendations for oversight and registration in this sector.
It appears she has misunderstood home education and CME. Home ed children can be out in the day, there’s no requirement to learn during school hours. The EHE team can make enquiries of home educators and follow steps if there are concerns about the provision. The register does nothing to identify children missing education, current legislation does that. The register will not include details of CME children.
Natasha Irons -(Croydon East) (Lab)
The bill… It also prevents vulnerable children from falling through the cracks by bringing in a register of children who are educated from home, and introducing a unique identifier, so that children are visible across the system.
These children are already on the LA register!
Laura Kyrke-Smith -(Aylesbury) (Lab)
Thirdly, I am so pleased that the Bill will ensure that fewer children fall through the cracks in the education system. I welcome in particular the measures to introduce a register of children out of school, with a unique number for every child. I recently spoke to a headteacher in Aylesbury about the scandal she calls “ghost children”—children who disappear from schools and social services. In Buckinghamshire alone, the number of children missing education has doubled in the past two years. The measures in the Bill will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that it is in their best interests and there is suitable alternative education for them.
Home educated children are already on LA registers, ghost children are not home educated and the bill does nothing to find them. CME might have doubled, but the register will do nothing to protect them.
Mr Jonathan Brash -(Hartlepool) (Lab)
Parents have the right to decide whether their child is in school, and I support that principle absolutely, but the state has a duty to ensure that every child has a high-quality education. It is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and one that we must protect. This Bill addresses a fundamental shift that has taken place over the last few years. In Hartlepool, the number of children being home-schooled has increased by 370% since the pandemic. In the last year alone, the number of parents refusing to engage with the local authority in anything other than writing has nearly doubled. Added to that, the number of children missing from education, which is a completely separate measure, is now 200 in Hartlepool. We have a duty to protect those children and their education. The vast majority of parents do a phenomenal job in those circumstances, but we have to accept the truth that there are times when they do not, and this Bill protects those children.
The parent has the duty to ensure a suitable education, NOT the state.
Home schooled!
They are not refusing to engage, they are choosing to communicate in writing to protect themselves against bad LAs who do untold harm. You could point him to the research we did about how LAs behave. The LA job is not to enter homes or see children, there is no benefit to this, and can cause irreparable harm to the home educating family.
Mr Mark Sewards -(Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The third issue relates to children who are not in school. The Bill will create a register of children who are not in school, so that local authorities will be in a position to ensure that all children are being taught in a suitable environment. This is excellent work; it is a minimum standard, and it is absolutely required.
I have been approached by constituents who home-school, and they do an excellent job. They wanted to share some concerns with me, which I promised I would raise with the relevant Minister, so I hope she will excuse me as I take the opportunity to do that now. First, when the registers are introduced, what safeguards will be in place to ensure that hackers, and others who try to breach the security of the local authority, cannot access them? Of course, the answers might not be forthcoming today; they might come in Committee. Secondly, what will be done to ensure that all local authorities take the same approach to the registers, so that we do not get hundreds of different approaches to collecting data? Finally, what clarification can the Minister provide on what interventions from the council will take place when it deems it appropriate to do so? What will the guidance look like?
Appreciate him raising questions, but there is no evidence to suggest home visits to check suitability of home environment will be appropriate, especially as many home educators do a lot of their learning outside of the home. This MP maybe needs to learn more about home education and its many styles.
Alison Hume -(Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Bill’s proposal to introduce a duty for local authorities to keep a register of children who are not in school is causing concern among families with children who have special educational needs and disabilities in my constituency. The concern is based not on the Bill but on the battles that parents find themselves fighting in order to ensure that their child’s needs are met.
In my experience, parents do not take the decision to withdraw their child from school lightly. One constituent has faced fines for her son’s non-attendance that she cannot afford to pay and problems at work because he is at home. Another constituent, Karen, who runs the marvellous charity Closer Communities in Scarborough, which supports families in this situation, has struggled to get appropriate support for her own son. Karen, who was a senior manager in the NHS, was forced to put her own career on hold, which inevitably had financial implications for her family.
Withdrawing a child from school is not easy and can have a major impact on a family. Most would prefer for their child to be educated in a mainstream school, where they get the support they need. I am proud that the Government are working hard to ensure that that happens in the future with more targeted mainstream provision. I hope that the Secretary of State can reassure parents like those I have described that they have nothing to fear from the legislation. Will she consider whether the register could be used to distinguish between parents who home-school by choice and those who do so because they have no choice?
It would be better if she made her point using home education not home schooling.
Most would not want their children in school, some might, but it is not many.
And even if they have no choice they should not be penalised with the bill data gathering.
Lizzi Collinge -(Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Additionally, the Bill’s steps to regulate home education are crucial to stop vulnerable children from falling through the cracks. The introduction of a register for children not in school will ensure greater safeguards, particularly for those who may be at risk of exploitation or neglect. It is vital that every child has access to safe, high-quality education regardless of where that is given.
Children only fall through the cracks when current legislation is not used properly.
The Minister for School Standards -(Catherine McKinnell)
Our priority is ensuring that the most vulnerable children do not fall off the radar of the professionals who are working to protect them. Members from across the House have rightly focused on that issue.. There will be “children not in school” registers in every English local authority, and local authority consent will be required to home-educate children who are subject to child protection inquiries or child protection plans, or who are at special schools; that is a proportionate solution that focuses on the most vulnerable.
They wouldnt fall off radar if current legislation was followed. Nothing in the home education sections are proportionate, they demonise home educators and erode the freedom to educate in a way that suits the child best.
You can invite your MP to discuss home education further, either in person or by email. Many misunderstand what home education is, so whilst trying to be brief you could explain a little, and ask them to have a further conversation with you about it and how the bill would impact you.
You can offer a few snippets about how you home educate, how you are known to the LA and on their register and provide information about the provision upon request, or if you are unknown you can explain why this should not be a concern, you can explain how home education in its current form would not be allowed with the new bill. It would be beneficial to raise the point that the bill does nothing to identify children being harmed or hidden, but it infringes on the freedom to educate in a way that suits your child best. That there is no evidence of home education being used to drop off radar to then be abused. Explain the harm LAs do when they misquote law, or lie, describe the problems they cause. Talk about how socialising is natural for a home ed child, and how varied their experiences are. And talk about how home education suits your child (and mention any SEND). You can mention that most LA
Our previous suggested contact was based on a template, this was to get as many people to contact their MP and the MP realise lots of people had issues with the wording of the bill. This contact needs to be far more unique. Though there is no harm in a few of you writing a letter together and asking to meet the MP together.
We are not writing this section as a template as we need MPs and the scrutiny committee to receive these communications in unique formats to see the varied issues and opinions. Below we point out the main areas we think need deleting or changing. Include whichever you feel are important. You can view our annotations on the bill and the bill wording HERE which should be read alongside our notes below so you know what each section says.
IT IS VITAL TO WORD YOUR EMAIL TO THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE IN YOUR OWN WORDS, HENCE THE MINIMAL INFORMATION GIVEN BELOW. Follow the information HERE on how to submit to the committee.
Firstly, ensure you say who you are, and why this is important to you. If you can number your paragraphs and keep your response under 3000 words it will be helpful to the committee. If you are making recommendations on specific parts of the bill, be clear which section and which line you are referring to.
You should raise the point that there is no requirement for a home education register at all as LAs already have a register. The proposed register does not include children missing education, so will do nothing to protect those children. Children deregistered from school are already known to the LA, already on their registers. The LA can make enquiries about the education and can serve a notice 437(1) and ultimately SAO if concerns about the education are known, they can also refer to children’s services (social workers) if they have safeguarding concerns. If children are currently lost or fall in cracks then that is a failure of professionals to use existing legislation. The proposed register requires an unattainable level of detail from home educators that it in effect bans styles of learning that are not fully timetabled school at home, which most do not do. (We know it’s difficult to say all of that in your own words, but please try).
There are many lines where just a single word can change the whole meaning of a section, whilst we would love you to raise every issue in the bill we think at this point you should focus on trying to encourage them to scrap the register, or edit the main points below. We will be submitting (as will other organisations and individuals) very detailed, line by line recommendations.
For full bill language and our annotations see HERE
Section 24 expects LAs to refuse consent to deregister if there is a child protection case, or assessment in process. This would be problematic for families who are on CP for issues not relating to their parenting or the home. It also expects LAs to refuse deregistration from special school if the LA determines it not to be in the best interests of the child. This could be misused by schools providing the LA with incorrect information. The LA does not know the child best, so this section needs rewording to protect all children and address each situation individually.
s24 8(b) could cause harm where the parents are separated due to abuse etc.
s24 12 automatically denies new deregistration requests within 6 months of previously being denied. This is dangerous due to children’s needs always changing and family circumstances changing. This should be removed.
We would hope section 24 be removed entirely. Current legislation allows LAs and SS to access emergency rulings to protect children they determine to be at risk therefore these extra restrictions are not required.
Section 25 Registration – ideally a register will be scrapped, it is wholly unnecessary as LAs already keep lists of home educated children. And this register does nothing to identify children missing education.
436C part 1
The details required from home educators is excessive.
a) and b) is information the school already passes on to the LA on deregistration.
d) is not quantifiable in hours as home education is flexible
e) is absolutely not possible for the majority of home educators, and will mean many styles of home education will not be possible as they can not provide this level of detail. Part (iv) or e) will affect home educating individuals who arrange drop off sessions for children at an activity/event, they would probably stop organising valuable events.
Part 2
k) any other information should be written into the bill, not be added at a later stage in secondary legislation.
Part 3.
LAs should absolutely not be allowed to add in their own criteria. They already misuse their duty, this would cause chaos and massive overstepping, if a register must be in place then the criteria should be uniform across all LAs.
436D
1 b) does this mean both parents need to provide the info?
2 a) the LA should not be allowed the freedom to ask for the info whenever they want, this needs limiting or the bad LAs will do it far too often.
b) they can not realistically expect home educators to update the LA every time they use a new group, website, tutor, etc. this is unrealistic information
436E
1 a) and b)
plus 3 a) and b)
The required information from unspecified groups will lead to groups refusing to accept home educators, will swimming lessons, language group lessons organised by a parent, scouts, home ed group outings to museums etc be included? This is too vague and open to an unattainable amount of information. Not all groups know a child is home educated as it is not a criteria to be known in afterschool and weekend groups.
436 F
3 open to misuse
5 is open to misuse and harm to families leaving badly behaved LA areas. The register allows bias and opinion which could then follow the family to the new LA.
436 G
1 allows the LA to provide inaccurate information as that is what they currently do, some outright lie, others hide their bias behind misquoted legalities, all under the guise of advice. Some LAs turn nasty if you do not follow their advice regardless of it not being suitable.
What measures will ensure the advice is accurate and suitable to the child? Will it include links to multiple home education support services?
2 Leaving support to the LA seeing fit to give will mean most LAs will offer nothing. And same concerns for 1 above
Schedule 31A
Whole section is reliant on the parent providing ridiculously extensive information that many will not be able to provide, this will mean fines and prison (7) for wanting to educate their child in a way that suits the child but means being unable to provide the lengthy information this bill expects.
436H
A replacement for 437(1) notice to satisfy.
5 c) why are the LA to decide what is in the best interests of the child?
6 If the parent is unable to provide the ridiculous amount of information on the register, despite no concerns being raised about the education, is not appropriate.
436 I
2 a) and c) will be misused and misquoted to force home visits before SAO is even considered, this happens already.
What happens if a home visit could be harmful to the child, eg if the child is autistic. The home should be the child’s safe space.
What training will the visiting person have?
Can this be legal? Only a person with a warrant has right of entry to the home.
3 choosing to protect your child and their safe space will be used against families, too much trust in the LA making the right decision is given. May have nothing to hide but with 100’s of families treated badly each week by LAs, you have everything to protect.
436k
An unnecessary addition to the existing 437(1) and SAO process, the complicated proposed processes with confuse LAs and home educators alike, the existing processes are more than adequate.
436P
8 VERY concerning as things stand many LAs serve SAOs for nefarious reasons, with evidence some use them to force compliance with ultra vires rules, currently if you are providing a suitable education but the LA refuses to accept that then you can go to court, and show a court the education is suitable. The risk is minimal, with the SAO being enforced and the parent fined as the worst case scenario.
This proposed section increases the penalty meaning fewer families will risk going to court even if the education is suitable! What is to stop LAs misusing this further?
Staffordshire website design and website SEO by Fellowship Studios.
Keep up to date with home ed news, important info and some fun stuff.
