Our recent FOI data shows that the number of children being electively home educated (EHE) varies widely between Local Authorities (LAs), from small cohorts of a few dozen children to very large populations running into the thousands. Home education is diverse and continues to grow across the UK.
EHE Stats 2025 (download UK data, England Only, Wales Only, Scotland Only)
(Please note: this is a simplified dataset. The full dataset is available on request.)
Crucially, the data demonstrates that the number of home educated children in an LA does not correlate with alleged safeguarding risk or educational failure. Where problems are claimed, they correlate far more strongly with local policy choices and enforcement culture, not with the size of the home education population.
This challenges the narrative that home education requires increased monitoring or control.
Some LAs have relatively small EHE populations, while others include many thousands of home educated children.
The data clearly shows that large EHE populations do not lead to high enforcement, undermining claims that home education at scale creates safeguarding risk.
Across England, Scotland and Wales, the number of children recorded as electively home educated rose to 137,100 in September 2025.
This represents an estimated net increase of between 10% and 30% compared with 2024. (This range reflects incomplete FOI returns in 2024, when many LAs refused to supply data.)
Our figures are broadly consistent with government statistics for 2025.
The growth reflects national trends and is linked to:
Importantly, while there was an increase in s.437(1) notices and SAOs, this rise was not matched by any increase in confirmed unsuitable education. A large proportion of cases were later closed or accepted as suitable.
Despite overall growth, some LAs saw substantial decreases:
These declines do not correlate with high or low enforcement. At present, there is no clear explanation for these local reductions.
A striking finding is the lack of correlation between EHE numbers and legal action.
Some LAs with very large home education populations issue few or no legal notices, while others with far smaller cohorts issue high volumes of s.437(1) notices and School Attendance Orders (SAOs).
This strongly suggests that enforcement is driven by local policy and culture, not by children’s educational needs.
In several LAs, s.437(1) notices have been issued to a significant percentage of all home educated children. This would require the implausible assumption that large proportions of families are failing to provide a suitable education — a claim contradicted by outcome data, where many cases are later closed or deemed suitable.
The following ten LAs show the highest rates of legal action against home educating families
(subject to change when the remaining 6 LAs respond to FOI requests):
| LA | s.437(1) | SAO |
|---|---|---|
| Redbridge | 57.1% | 4.1% |
| Central Bedfordshire | 50.3% | 19.8% |
| Walsall | 29.5% | 13.6% |
| Blaenau Gwent | 22.3% | 9.3% |
| Rhondda Cynon Taf | 21.1% | 9% |
| Sheffield | 14.1% | 10.8% |
| Doncaster | 23.5% | 5.1% |
| Milton Keynes | 17.8% | 7.3% |
| Thurrock | 24.2% | 2.8% |
| Barnet | 21% | 2.8% |
National average:
These figures suggest systemic use of legal powers to force compliance, rather than address genuine educational failure.
The following LAs failed to provide FOI data:
This lack of transparency is concerning, particularly given Portsmouth’s previous history of extreme enforcement.
Many cases are closed because:
This indicates that legal action is often used to force engagement in the manner of which the LA demands, not because children are missing education.
Several LAs explicitly state that children are moved into CME after s.437(1) is issued:
This practice artificially inflates CME figures and creates a false safeguarding narrative.
The rise in home education is real — but the ‘risk’ is being manufactured.
The Bill relies heavily on CME numbers and “non-engagement” as evidence of danger.
Our data suggests that many LAs create CME by reclassifying lawfully home educated children when parents refuse unlawful demands.
The pattern is:
This is circular. The Bill is responding to its own enforcement footprint, not genuine risk.
Our Top-10 list shows that some LAs already place 20–60% of all home-educated families under legal threat, this is considerably more than the national average.
These are not safeguarding authorities. They are enforcement regimes.
The Bill would give these same authorities:
Unfortunately history tells us exactly what they will do with those powers:
use them to crush lawful home education.
The FOI data and our casework indicate that s.437(1) and SAOs are frequently used as control mechanisms, not safeguards.
Many LAs are:
This represents systemic overreach that harms families and undermines lawful home education.
Staffordshire website design and website SEO by Fellowship Studios.
