Case study 1.
My EHE person is really friendly, we chat every 3 months. We show her what Bobby has been learning, showing her the workbooks, website logs, projects and photos from days out. He reads to her, tells her all about the family. She stays about an hour and a half, and usually plays a game with Bobby, last time it was monopoly and she was asking him lots of maths questions. She tells him how good he is doing. She follows up with a 5 page report about everything we talked about and she gives us some suggestions for topics and learning materials.
Case study 2.
My EHE person oversteps massively, she tries asking for information every 3 months even though she has raised no concerns about the suitability of the education. She tries to demand photos of the learning, has quizzed us extensively on why we don’t use workbooks, or print logs from workbooks, it appears she does not understand or respect learning that goes far beyond the curriculum. She asks really intrusive questions about people not responsible for the education, such as my parents, our jobs etc. Despite me providing her a report which details what Xander has been learning, the resources used, the progress made, and how the education is suitable to his age, ability, aptitude and SEN, she still comes back asking more questions, things not relevant to her role or home education, we tell her to refer back to our report. She eventually states she has no concerns but still asks to have a visit again in 3 months, we tell her now, 3 times throughout the year, before agreeing to write another report, a year after the last. Last time she asked for a visit she claimed ‘most families in the area welcome my home visits’. In her follow up report she claimed that there were concerns that we had not followed through on her recommended resources, resources that weren’t ability appropriate to begin with.
At the end of this article, we will check back in with these case studies to see what is likely to happen in the future.
When “Just Letting Them” In Becomes Everyone’s Problem
Within the home education community, there’s a quiet but significant divide.
On one side are families who understand the legal framework. They know that their duty is to provide a suitable education, not to submit to monitoring. They know that local authorities (LAs) have limits, and they expect those limits to be respected.
On the other side are families who, often with the best of intentions, allow far more than the law requires.
They agree to home visits.
They allow officials to speak directly to their child.
They provide overly detailed reports, samples of work, timetables, and plans — even when none of this is legally required.
And crucially, they don’t challenge it.
At first glance, this can look like cooperation. It can even feel like the “easier” option.
But this isn’t just a personal choice.
It has consequences for everyone.
One of the most important — and often overlooked — realities is this:
Local authorities are not consistent.
Some are relatively hands-off. They understand the limits of their role and will accept written information without issue.
Others are far more intrusive. They push for home visits, expect to see the child, and apply pressure when families don’t comply with requests that go beyond the law.
This creates a false sense of security.
Families in “easier” areas may feel that allowing visits or sharing more information isn’t a problem — because their LA is reasonable.
But that experience is not universal.
In a more assertive LA, the very same behaviour sets a much stronger precedent — and is far more likely to be used to justify increased intrusion, both for that family and others.
And, worryingly, this issue is seen within LAs, one member of staff is hands-off, the other is quick to serve school attendance orders (SAO).
Local authorities do not operate in a vacuum. Their expectations are shaped over time by what they experience in practice.
If a significant number of families allow home visits, those visits begin to feel routine.
If families regularly provide extensive evidence, it starts to feel like a standard requirement.
If children are frequently made available to be quizzed, it becomes an assumed part of the process.
None of this changes the law — but it does change behaviour.
Over time, what was once clearly outside the legal framework becomes normalised. Not legally, but operationally.
So when a family later says:
They are no longer seen as simply exercising their rights.
They are seen as refusing.
In many areas, LAs will still technically accept a ‘no thanks’. They may not escalate immediately to formal action such as a s437(1) Notice to Satisfy or a School Attendance Order (SAO).
But that doesn’t mean there are no consequences.
Instead, something quieter happens.
Files are marked.
Notes are added.
Language shifts.
Families who are fully meeting their legal obligations — often by providing a clear, written account of a suitable education — may still find themselves described as:
This is despite the fact that they are complying with the law.
The issue is not legal compliance.
The issue is failure to meet informal expectations that should never have existed in the first place.
There is another risk that is often underestimated.
Many families base their decisions on their current relationship with a specific LA officer:
“They’re nice.”
“They’ve always been reasonable.”
“We’ve never had a problem.”
But that relationship is not fixed.
Staff change.
Managers change.
Policies change.
And when they do, the context shifts — but your history does not.
If you have previously allowed home visits, allowed your child to be seen, or provided extensive evidence, that becomes your baseline.
So when a new officer or stricter policy comes in, you may find yourself in a very difficult position.
What was once:
Can quickly become:
And if you then try to step back and say no, it can be interpreted as:
In other words, you go from being seen as cooperative to being seen as problematic — not because anything has gone wrong, but because you have tried to reclaim a boundary that was never meant to be crossed in the first place.
Right now, in many cases, families can still hold that line.
They can say no to overreach, provide appropriate written information, and — although it may come with friction — the LA often backs down.
But that doesn’t mean the overreach disappears.
It gets recorded.
It gets discussed internally.
It informs training, policy, and future approach.
It builds a picture within the LA of what they believe they should be able to do.
And that becomes critical when legislation changes.
We already know that changes to home education law are going to happen, it’s just a matter of time for them to be finalised.
While the full detail is not yet confirmed, proposals and discussions have included:
When these changes come into force, LAs will not be starting from a blank slate.
They will be building on existing practice. Some are already attempting to make changes based on a law that is not even law yet.
And if that existing practice has already been stretched beyond the legal framework, the starting point for these new powers will already be skewed.
What was once “voluntary” becomes expected.
What was expected becomes required.
This shift does not affect all families equally.
Those who are likely to feel the impact most are often those who rely most heavily on the current legal boundaries for protection.
This includes families with:
For these families, the ability to say no to home visits, direct questioning, or intrusive monitoring is not about principle — it is about safeguarding their child’s wellbeing.
But if those boundaries have already been eroded in practice, they become far harder to defend when new legal powers are introduced.
A common response is:
“We don’t mind. It works for us.”
And that may be true — right now.
But this isn’t just about what works under a voluntary system.
Because once expectations become legal requirements:
At that point, it is no longer cooperation.
It is compliance.
It’s a high risk of losing the right to home educate.
Home education does not exist in isolation.
The way one family interacts with the LA contributes — whether intentionally or not — to the wider environment that all families operate within.
Every time unnecessary access is given, it reinforces the idea that:
And over time, that shapes policy, practice, and eventually, law.
Allowing the LA to overstep now does not make things easier in the long term.
It creates precedent — both for the LA, and for your own family.
And that precedent doesn’t stay fixed in a “friendly” context. It can — and does — shift as staff, management, and policies change.
What feels cooperative today can be used as a benchmark tomorrow.
And when the law changes, that benchmark may become the minimum requirement.
For everyone.
Case studies after a staff change or a policy change.
Case study 1.
I let the new EHE person in, she was awful, she made Bobby cry. She was aggressive and demanded to know why Bobby was not yet learning algebra, I tried explaining that we were planning on starting algebra after the summer. This turned into a full argument on how that is not where in the curriculum algebra sat, and if I was following the curriculum we should have done it by now. She went on to tell me that she did not agree with Bobby spending one morning a week at Forest School, that this was not academic learning and therefore not a good use of time. I was devastated.
The next time she asked for a visit I said no, I wrote a report instead, but she referred us to social services because Bobby was an overly emotional child, that I was neglecting his emotional and social needs, and I was aggressive. The social workers thinks home education is illegal. Things are a mess.
Case study 2.
I heard things have changed locally. I was worried about them making their enquiries. I got their ‘monitoring request’ that’s a new name for it here, and I sent off a report as usual. I didn’t get a reply. But as far as I can tell that is common here for those of us who have always sent written responses, it’s been 2 months so I assume they have no concerns. I am so glad I have always made the LA stay in their lane.
Make sure to find us on social media.
Staffordshire website design and website SEO by Fellowship Studios.
