The bill that does not live up to its name. We always encourage everyone to do their own research and fact check. Anyone can read the latest bill wording and check what stage of the process it is at. This bill impacts every child through the consistent identifier (clause 4). It also impacts families where social care is relevant, through Part 1 of the bill, including kinship care, fostering and children’s homes and includes changes for child employment. Additionally, through part 2 it affects schools, independent providers, children in out-of-school education arrangements, flexi-schooling families, and home educators. Still think you can bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

A bill introduced to House of Commons on 17th December 2024. It was rushed through the House of Commons stages without robust scrutiny. Do not take my word for it the Education Committee stated “The Government has neither followed its own guidelines, nor engaged as productively as we would have liked with our Committee over this Bill.” at 6(pg2) and “The publication of the Impact Assessment over a month after the Bill was introduced and halfway through the consideration of the Bill in Committee, shows scant regard for the House.” and on page 9 at 45 “We have not had the time or resource to comb through the Bill or take evidence on the delegated powers within it,” “We stated at the beginning of this Report that the Bill’s timetable and handling has not allowed us to conduct detailed legislative scrutiny.”. The process is designed to give us good law, but if the government ignores stakeholders, and then appears to ignore its own rules, is it a surprise the bill is so poorly drafted.

It transferred to House of Lords stages on 19th March 2025. We have certainly heard and seen scrutiny at this stage. There where some passionate speeches at the 2nd reading and detailed explanations with evidence cited at the committee stage, but the government does not appear so far to have taken on board many of the sensible suggestions raised to stop the bill being impracticable. There are still a few more stages to go so their is still hope if we all act.

The focus here is on the parts that impact home educating families. Clause 4 the consistent identifier changes the climate for data sharing. It widens sharing children’s data without the childs or parents consent from the current position of “safeguarding” which we agree is essential and the correct threshold as children must be appropriately safeguarded, and it is everyone’s role to act if there is a genuine safeguarding risk.

Children have rights, and this clause ignores the child’s right to data privacy by lowering the point when their data can be shared without their permission or their parents’ permission. It enables wide data sharing with minimum safeguards, experts have spoken out against it but the government appear to be ignoring these concerns.

The biggest risks to home education start at Clause 31 through to the end of Clause 36. The bill introduces guidance on a statutory footing. So we know there will be new guidance, but because it’s guidance, it is not in the face of the bill. So we do not know what it will say. But the whispers of what it might contain have not been in my opinion in the best interests of home educating families.

At Clause 31 it introduces LA Consent to withdraw your own child from school to home educate under some circumstances, including just because your child is attending a special school. The LA MUST refuse consent If “the local authority considers -.. that it would be in the childs best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school”. Riding roughshod over your parental responsibility, and no meaningful way to challenge this. No requirement to explain themselves or give reasons. Anyone can look up the SEND tribunal statistics to see that the LA frequently get it wrong. In my opinion and I publicly stated this the day after the wording of the bill was released, this is disability discrimination being intentionally baked into law.

The other circumstances where you need consent and again they “must refuse consent” if “the local authority considers -.. that it would be in the childs best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school”. is if there are s47 enquiries occurring. We know from casework that if a family is trying to extricate themselves from a domestic violence situation, this often triggers s47 enquiries, we also know certain professionals who do not understand home education is a valid and lawful choice put in misguided safeguarding referrals. We agree every referral should be appropriately followed up and investigated, but this should not be at the detriment of the child and family when they are choosing to home educate. Home education does not prevent safeguarding enquiries from occurring. The majority of s47 enquiries do not lead to a child protection plan. An enquiry / investigation should not be sufficient to override parental responsibility, and if it does turn out to be one of the small percentage of cases that do convert into a child protection plan, under existing legislation they can write additional safeguards into the child protection plan without ignoring the child’s or parents voice on choosing to home educate.

They have failed to consider what we have been seeing more and more of this year. Some schools are unhappy because the parent cites the reasons they are now home educating. Rather than reflect on making the school better, for other students, what appears to be a parent blame inaccurate safeguarding referral is made. Even though NO safeguarding concerns were logged or raised prior to the school receiving a deregistration letter. The bill, as drafted, could trap a child in an inappropriate education setting.

We know these circumstances happen, but if the government choose to play at being an Ostrich, then put in a meaningful appeals procedure. If situations like this do not occur (they do), then it will not be used, but it would go a significant way to reassuring parents.

Clause 32 introduces a children not in school register. A register some may feel is benign. Under existing law when you deregister the school already sends a return to the LA and they keep a record. This is supposed to be a “voluntary register” but I am yet to meet a family successful at getting their details removed from the “voluntary register” under data protection rights of erasure. So is a CNIS register necessary?

Even if you agree that a children not in school register is necessary, then have you looked at what that register is expected to contain under this bill. Before anyone starts going Hyperbole! Hyperbole! you can scroll to pg 58 of the bill yourself and check. It is disproportionate to be polite. It certainly is not in the spirit of data protection and data minimisation to what is necessary to achieve its purpose. But maybe that is why no data privacy impact assessment appears to exist, or if it does the government has not disclosed it.

REMEMBER THIS IS ALL IN THE BILL YOU CAN CHECK FOR YOURSELF!

Childs name, date of birth and home address, the name and home address of each parent of the child, the name of each parent who is providing education to that child, the amount of time that child spends receiving education from each parent of the child, the names and addresses of any INDIVIDUALS other than the parent involved in providing education, the names and addresses of any ORGANISATIONS involved in providing in providing education, a description of each provider, the postal address of where the education is provided, the website or email address if education providers are virtual, the total amount of time the child spends receiving education without parent of child being actively involved, the childs protected characteristics, if the child has SEN / ALN, if the child has an EHCP/IDP, any enquiries (current) being made under s47 and associated actions, any actions that have been taken by child’s current LA or other LAs previously under s47, is the child is currently on a child in need plan or has ever been and what actions are, or have been taken and any services received, if child is or has been a LAC, the reason why a child is on CNIS register (Condition C), schools, institutions that the child has attended in the past, if the LA is providing support and if yes what support, any actions the LA has taken in relation to preliminary notices and SAO, any other information the LA considers appropriate, and any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a local authority or educational institutions that the Secretary of State considers should be included.

This is in effect a blank cheque list for LAs to profile families. Would you be happy for that level of data to be held on your family?

If that is not exhausting and intrusive enough, parents must inform LA of a change to any of the information, see 436D subsection 4 (c) in the bill if you want to check for yourself a grand total of 15 days to inform the LA of the change. This is simply unrealistic for the majority of styles of home education to consistently comply with in full.

Remember that long list of “providers” you may use to ensure your child receives an efficient fulltime education suitable to their age, ability, aptitude and SEN/ALN, the LA can demand to know if they are providing out of school education now or within the last 3 months. The LA can insist they are provided with the childrens names, address, date of birth and the amount of time they provide education without the parent being actively involved or supervising. This includes details for children not residing in the requesting LA. Again the generous time period of at least 15 days for the provider to comply. If they fail to comply the provider can receive a monetary penalty.

We are already hearing of some groups reducing their offer to home-educated children until they have a clearer picture from government. The detail will be in secondary legislation (Regulations). So not in the face of the bill. As written currently all cadet groups, youth theatres, sports clubs, etc are captured under this clause. Will this additional bureaucracy be able to be absorbed, or will they just start saying NO to home educated children attending.

Equally what about childrens rights, why stigmatise children attending recognised groups and activities with other children. A child should be able to be just another cadet. Why but for this bill would they even need to know how the child receives their education. Equally if as a parent I choose not to disclose my child is home educated how is it fair that the group could potentially get a monetary fine.

So providers can get monetary penalties. Parents for not complying get a preliminary notice, that can be escalated to an SAO and if you do not comply with the SAO and are prosecuted 436Q if you want to check the bill yourself if found guilty as a parent worst case scenario you could face level 4 fine and imprisonment of 6 months.

Interestingly, even if a parent is acquitted it does not automatically lead to the SAO being revoked.

We ask everyone to Write to your MP, and Sign the petition

Michelle 03/10/25