Shocking data indicates some LAs are misusing their powers.

Is this happening in your LA?

It appears some LAs are using the s437(1) notice as a threat to make you feel forced to comply with their local policy (which may be disproportionate) rather than only provide what the law in general requires. In some areas it seems they are being used as a compliance tool to force you to have home visits, meet the LA, have a teacher/tutor sign off on the suitability of the learning, or to follow a particular style of learning, in some it is to force you to provide photos of your child and their learning.  

As part of our recent research we did an updated FOI (Freedom of information request sent to every LA), asking about the numbers of home educated children, the number of s437(1) formal notice to satisfy served and number of SAO served. The data is worrying. 

If you live in one of the areas we mention below, please get in touch with us. Even if your communication went smoothly. 

A s437(1) is a notice issued (usually by letter) requiring you to satisfy the LA. It should only be issued after “it appears” to the LA that your child is not receiving a suitable education. It is a notice issued because the LA has concerns about the home education provision. It should not be used as a compliance tool just because you responded with sufficient information about your child’s provision in a  format that differs to the method the LA wants you to comply with. It should only be used after informal attempts (an email, letter or maybe phone call) to gather information have failed. The communication should have included what specific concerns the LA had, if any, to give you a chance to address them. Most of you will never have been served one, and that’s how it should be if the education is suitable regardless of how you choose to respond to the LA enquiries. .

When the LA makes informal enquiries or formal s437(1) enquiries it is up to you how you respond. They do not have a legal duty to dictate that you meet with them, or provide photos etc. You can choose to submit written information (this is the method Educational Freedom considers the safest option) and this choice in itself is not sufficient to warrant concern about the provision. Whilst there are some details the LA requires to be reassured your child is not missing from education and is in receipt of home education, written info need not be lengthy. our report writing guide explains more. It is important your written information contains the necessary information, but is in your own words and an accurate reflection of the education your child does receive.  In order to confirm your child is being suitably educated YOU NEVER HAVE TO MEET THE LA and YOU NEVER HAVE TO PROVIDE SAMPLES OF THE LEARNING (you should give examples not samples).

The high number of notices to satisfy seen in at least 10 LAs does not correlate with the fairly low numbers of SAO being served in the same LA. If the s437(1) notices were issued on genuine objective concerns of unsuitable education the majority of these would then lead to SAO being issued. The conversion rate of S437(1) to SAO being disproportionately low is indicative that either LA staff in those areas may have been insufficiently trained in different EHE styles, therefore staff are unable to recognise suitable education when the information is provided to them in a different format to their personal preferences, which leads to inappropriate escalation. Or more worryingly, when combined with the anecdotal feedback we have already had from families in some of these areas, the LA did not have objectively genuine concerns about their child’s education in the first place, and it was used as a method of control because the family did provide information but did not want to comply with additional specific excessive demands the LA made that are not required under current law or current national government guidance. 

If you receive a s437(1) notice and your education is unsuitable, or you provide insufficient information then the LA can and should serve an SAO (school attendance order).Which you will see are very rare with only around 1% of known home educators being served one. We are under no illusions there are times where it is appropriate to serve a s437(1) notice which subsequently converts to a SAO but these should be issued only when “it appears” to a LA the child is not receiving a suitable education. It should not be served because the LA wants a family to comply with a specific local requirement that the family are not in agreement.  And should not be used as a threat ‘if you dont do ………..we will issue a s437(1) notice / start the SAO process’. The feedback we have received coupled with the low s437(1) conversion rates to SAO indicate this process is being misused as a compliance tool rather than a reactive investigative tool when an LA genuinely believes that a specific child may be missing education.

The FOI was conducted in August 2024, LAs had 20 days to reply to which an incredibly large number did not comply with, and now, mid October, Haringey, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Lewisham, Portsmouth, Stockport, and Surrey, have either not replied to the FOI, or refused to provide some of the data we requested. This is a concern as we know some of these are heavy handed with their s437(1) and SAO and therefore should be included in the below table (we will edit this article when we get a reply). 

We want your input on the LA areas mentioned above and below. Please contact us with any information you have, information that can show what the situation is like on the ground. 

These are the most concerning LAs and the data gathered. 

With Doncaster being the worst offender with around 43% of their known families receiving a s437(1), we already have feedback that indicates they issue these for saying no to a meeting and providing info in writing instead, but their low SAO stats show they do not follow through with the SAO. Unfortunately our information shows that many people bowed to the pressure of the excessive unnecessary demands due to fear they may receive an SAO and be prosecuted for a crime, even though they were confident their child was receiving a suitable education, rather than stand their ground against excessive oversight. Thus strengthening the argument that we should all be saying no to visits, to further reiterate to LAs that visits are not mandatory. We believe things are changing in Doncaster as their communication appears to be different. But we want to know, what is your experience?

Blaenau Gwent have a worryingly high s437(1) and SAO rate, though locals seem to not be noticing this issue, we wonder if there are a lot of families who have not found local or national support and are not aware of the overstepping with requests for information?

We can also note the number of SAO that were revoked, most LAs will not divulge further information about this as it could identify individual families. But we want to hear from you, were you served an SAO and subsequently had it revoked? What happened we would like to know. 

If you live in any of the above areas we would like you to get in touch to share your experience. 

Being heavy handed with s437(1) does not promote a positive working relationship with the LA, and it would be a good idea if your local group and Educational Freedom, jointly made contact with these LAs to discuss improving their service. Please share this post in your local group, it is clear there are still hundreds of families not receiving suitable support when dealing with their LA. We can be that support and unlike other groups and organisations, we do not charge a membership fee, plus we are a recognised and established organisation (not just a Facebook group).