20/3/25

This week the Children’s wellbeing and schools bill moved to the house of Lords, with parliament having its last discussion, you can view the highlights and shocking low lights here. We heard some amazing and passionate MPs support home educators, this is because of you writing to them and raising your concerns. We also heard some really ignorant comments that thankfully other MPs pulled them up on.

Amendments to the proposed bill were put forwards, the vast majority were not agreed to, despite most of them making sense, we will discuss this in a moment. And what can be done now.

‘But the Children’s wellbeing and schools bill will protect children.’

‘We need to know who is home educated.’

‘What about the abused children?’

These are the things the media, MPs and the Lords are saying, so let’s help you address those comments.
The first is to ask how the bill is going to protect children, because it won’t. Every child that is part of a serious case review was known to services. Sara Sharif was known to school, social workers and EHE, this bill would have not changed her outcome. We hate saying this, but she would have still died. The bill would have given no new measures to protect her. The measures already exist, they were just not used appropriately. The bill changes none of that, but what it does do is put an unrealistic burden on home educators and organisers of events and education services, it changes the freedom to provide an education suitable to the child, and allows the LA to determine what is in the child’s best interests. It even endangers peoples lives by forcing parents to share details of estranged and often violent ex partners.

We already know who the majority of home educators are, the LA keeps a register/a list, so the register element of the bill is actually not the biggest problem (it is a problem but we can’t see that being dropped now, so let’s focus on the details), one of the issues is that the data the register will require is unrealistic. The register will require details of every adult involved in the education, this includes your nan, the neighbour, the librarian, the post man, the shop worker. They want details of every website. And so much more.

The bill wants to allow the LA to enter your home, or see any other venue education takes place. It expects consent to deregister in certain circumstances, but provides no protection from this being misused by the LA.

At no point does it protect children, if your MP thinks it will, please ask them to explain how.

PLEASE NOTE, THIS BILL WILL NOW AFFECT WALES TOO!!! With no consultation or discussion, the government slipped in the news that Wales will be enacting this bill too.

What you can do… (and do it now as this is time sensitive)

Even though the bill has moved to the Lords, and we are asking you to write to as many of them as possible, it is important to still write to your MP.

The next stage of the bill is for the Lords to discuss it and put forward amendments, as the bill left the commons with very few and minor alterations. And the MP scrutiny committee ran out of time to fully discuss the details regarding home education, yes, they actually ran out of time, and most amendments were refused yesterday, this stage is vital. Lots of Lords are putting their name down to speak on the matter, so we know this is getting noticed. But keep writing to them. Keep telling them your story, and use the below info to help you raise the concerns.

The bill will genuinely screw home educators over. The DfE can not see it, despite continued efforts from Educational Freedom and home educators, they can not see how the register’s required information is not doable, they can not see how the info required does nothing to assure a suitable education for the child is in place, it does nothing to protect children. It will give LAs and home educators alike a heavy burden of admin. They do not understand how the bill will be misused by the unscrupulous LAs, how the new SAO process will be misused to force entry into homes. The harm this will do it will surpass anything we have seen before, and we have seen some horrid stuff.

Here we are going to pull out some of the wording from the bill, and a brief explanation of why it is problematic, use this to help write to your MP and Lords, remember to personalise your letters, ensure you explain how this bill will affect you and others, even invite them to talk to you, and to meet home educators. Remember they are often ignorant to what home education is, rather than malicious, so educating them is key. The majority are open to learning something new. If they are local to you you could even invite them for a cuppa and chat. Or to home ed group (if the others agree). Showcase home education whilst explaining how the bill won’t protect children, but will harm them and their families.

436A section 1 and 4, consent from the LA to withdraw is required if the child is under a child protection plan, or an assessment for one.

This means the LA could refuse to allow you to deregister even though many CP are because of schools failing the child, and a vast proportion of s47 enquiries do not result in a CP.

If someone (an angry school, or malicious ex) makes a referral to social services saying the child is in immediate danger etc and the social worker feels this requires a s47 enquiry, this referral then stops the family from being able to deregister without consent. Some school referrals to children’s services are through genuine ignorance, they do not understand home education, they think it will mean the child is home all day and never seeing another person, this ignorance could cause a delay in deregistration, which is unfair on the child. Those schools who do it out of vindictiveness are not safe places for the child to be, but by making this referral the deregistration would be delayed, or refused.

This could put the child at risk by being forced to stay in an unsuitable school, especially as those making the decision on whether to consent to deregistration may not understand home education, or even know much about the child.

Currently if a child is subject to a child protection plan, upon deregistration, the school will inform the LA, the EHE team will be informed that there is a CP, the social worker will be informed that the child is now home educated, and they will liaise. If the social worker deems it appropriate, they can put measures in place for the child to be returned to school. Changing this process is not necessary.
‘(4) Condition B is that a local authority in England is— (a) conducting enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (duty to investigate) in respect of the child, or (b) taking action under section 47(8) of that Act to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare, in a case where the enquiries mentioned in paragraph (a) have led the local authority to conclude that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm (within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10) of that Act).‘

Section 6 means that upon requesting consent to deregister (as above) the LA can determine what is in YOUR child’s best interests and then MUST refuse. Or must refuse if they do not feel suitable arrangements have been made for the education. This completely ignores that many home educate through child led styles that can not always be prepared for, that forward planning isn’t always suitable. This section could allow someone with no knowledge of home education to decide if the arrangements are suitable. And there is scope for LAs to misuse this section to attempt forced home visits or to see extensively detailed plans.

They can overrule parental rights here!

This is allowing complete strangers to decide what is in the best interests of the child, this could be the EHE team who have no specific knowledge about your child’s circumstances, it could be a social worker who has no idea what home education entails!
(6) If a parent of a relevant child applies to the relevant local authority for consent to withdraw the child from school for the purpose of causing the child to receive education otherwise than at school, the
authority—
(a) must decide without undue delay whether to grant consent, and
(b) must refuse consent if the local authority considers—
(i)that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school or
(ii) that no suitable arrangements have been made for the education of the child otherwise than at school,

Section 12 means you can not ask to home educate again within 6 months, regardless of a change of situation, or your child’s health changing, or school being dangerous. The LA MUST refuse.
(12) If a subsequent application is made in relation to a relevant child in respect of whom the relevant local authority has previously refused consent under subsection (6), the authority is only required to make
a new decision under subsection (6)(a) if a period of 6 months has elapsed since the date of the previous application.

The below is the section which details the information the register will require.

436C Content and maintenance of registers
(1) A register under section 436B must contain the following information
in respect of a child registered in it—
(a) the child’s name, date of birth and home address,
(b) the name and home address of each parent of the child,
(c) the name of each parent who is providing education to that child,
(d) the amount of time that the child spends receiving education from each parent of the child,
(e) if the child receives education from a person other than their parent—
(i) the names and addresses of any individuals and organisations involved in providing that education,
(ii) a description of the type of each provider named under sub-paragraph (i),
(iii) the postal address of each place where that education is provided (where different from the address in sub-paragraph (i)) or the website or email address of the provider if that education is provided virtually,
(iv) the total amount of time that the child spends receiving that education and the amount of time the child spends receiving that education without any parent of the child being actively involved in the tuition or supervision of the child.

There are many things wrong with this, but notice it is thinking that home education is school at home, that the child is ‘receiving education’, which most of you don’t do. Most will not be able to give a breakdown of hours. Most will be different from week to week. How will you provide details of every adult and website? It just isn’t possible. The information here appears to be an attempt to ban all styles of home education that are not formal and structured. How often would they need this information? For a family who accesses 5 or 6 groups a week, 10 websites a week, and 40 different adults each week, this is going to be a ridiculous amount of information. What happens when you trial a website or group, but decide it isn’t a good fit for your child, will they need that info? The level of detail the parent will have to record every day is going to take a considerable part of their day. What about the children who self lead, the teenagers who do not need supervision to the extent this register expects? How will the parent be able to list every website or adult the teen has learned through? What happens to the groups that are one offs? Or groups where a different adult runs the session each week? We think what they were hoping to gain from this was information to find out about illegal schools, but those using those are not likely to be honest in the information they provide, it’s not ideal, but lets get real, those who are putting their children at risk, those who are doing harm, will not sign up to the register, they will go deeper off radar. The bill goes on to say that the parent is expected to update the register when anything changes. You try a new website, you go to a new group, your trial swimming lessons, you talk to a new neighbour!!! Not being able to provide any of this info will result in a fine and possibly the SAO process being started!

What happens if the other parent is a risk to the child or has no contact? What happens if by sharing the other parents details it leaves the child in danger of harm or worse? Where is the common sense?

And then it gets worse ‘(3) A register under section 436B may also contain any other information
the local authority considers appropriate.’

Yep, the LA can demand anything at all that they want to know and you won’t be able to refuse, or if it is information you can not provide they could use it as a reason to serve a school attendance order. This is giving the worst LAs a chance to do untold harm to home educators. Look at the way some of them already behave!

436D Provision of information to local authorities: parents
(2) A parent of a child who is registered by a local authority in England under section 436B must—
(a) provide the authority, on request, with any of the information referred to in section 436C(1) that the parent has,

In other words, the LA can demand this information whenever it wants, which according to section 4 this must be provided within 15 days.

436E Provision of information to local authorities: education providers
(3) The authority may by notice require the person—
(a) to confirm whether or not the person is providing out-of-school education to any child as mentioned in subsection (1)(a), or has done so at any time during the period of 3 months ending
with the date of the notice, and (b) to provide the authority with the following information in
relation to any child (whether or not that child lives in the authority’s area) to whom they are providing such education, or to whom they have provided such education during that month period—
(i) the child’s name, date of birth and home address,
(ii) the total amount of time that they provide such education to the child, and
(iii) the amount of time that they provide such education to the child without any parent of the child being actively involved in the tuition or supervision of the
child.

This whole section worries us (who are we kidding this whole document scares us), what this section does is it relies on secondary legislation (which doesn’t have the same scrutiny as a bill) to determine what criteria will be applied, therefore this could mean dance classes, museum groups, scouts, even the home ed mum organised events could all be required to provide details about your child and their learning. Groups will not want this burden or the risk of prosecution which the bill continues to detail, they will block home educators from accessing activities.

Now for the part that you will spit your cuppa out at, so put your mug down.
436G Support
(1) If a parent of a child registered by a local authority in England under section 436B so requests, the local authority must provide support to the parent by securing the provision of advice and information relating to the education of the child.
(2) The advice and information to be provided is whatever the local authority considers fit having regard to the parent’s request and may include—
(a) advice about the education of the child, and
(b) information about sources of assistance for the education of
the child.

You see that bit we highlighted? its the get out of jail free card for LAs. ‘We don’t have the staff/funding/resources to give what you are asking’ will be the new copy and paste line LAs give when a home educator asks for something. This whole section about support was meant to soften the blow of the ridiculous register. But we are not stupid, we’ve been around long enough to know how this game works. Currently, if the LA gives you advise (whether you asked for it or not), the worse LAs will use it against you if you do not follow it through, some will even use it against you if you do. Home educators can not win, which is why most will only seek advice and support from fellow home educators and organisations like ourselves. The bill gives no real support at all. This was raised in parliament with more than one MP asking for exams to be included in the bill. We support this proposed amendment.

SCHEDULE 31A
Section 436E
FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 436E: MONETARY PENALTIES

This section explains that you will basically be fined for not providing the info for the register or the extra info the LA has demanded. Please note this isn’t about the education not being suitable, it is about you not giving info for the register.

Wow! Some doozies in this section:
School attendance orders: England
436H Preliminary notice for school attendance order
The LA under section 1 must serve a preliminary notice to attend school if the child is not in receipt of a suitable education (fair enough) OR a child protection plan is put in place OR an assessment for a child protection plan is underway.
The LA can serve a notice because you didn’t provide the information for the register in their time scale or in the way they wanted.

If the LA deem the education unsuitable this would act like a current s437(1) formal notice to satisfy, where you are required to provide the LA with information explaining the suitability of the education. However if you are being served it due to social services involvement, you will be required to explain how the home education is in the child’s best interests.

This relies heavily on the parent understanding what is required in a preliminary notice, and on the LA adequately explaining it, and being able to respond to the preliminary notice in a way that provides the info they want. We already know, and have evidence, of s437(1) and SAO being used as a threat and to force compliance, we imagine this will also be misused but to a greater extent. LAs currently pick and choose parts of legislation, they twist it to make it sound like what they’re asking for is required, they also do not include clear to understand information about what they require, which results in a sub par response from the home educator meaning the LA can escalate. (We will of course ensure the Educational Freedom website is up to date with detailed information and templates to help you).

Section 2 of the school attendance order states ‘(2) For the purpose of determining whether an order must be served under this section in respect of a child, the local authority—
(a) must consider all of the settings where the child is being educated and where the child lives,
(b) must consider how the child is being educated and what the child is learning, so far as is relevant in the particular case,
and
(c) may request the child’s parent on whom the preliminary notice has been served under section 436H to allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child
lives.‘

This section declares for us all to see that the person who wrote this has never experienced an over zealous or malicious EHE person, has never seen the harm a forced visit does. If you have already been served a preliminary notice and the LA have decided your written word is not enough (which is what dozens do now) they will force a home visit, they will demand to see your child. And what do the worst EHE staff currently do? They demand the child performs, reads for them, talks to them, they get asked if they like home education, what did they learn yesterday, they get asked if they like their parents… the EHE person rarely has training beyond school, so they use home visits to judge and find problems. They dislike your wallpaper and raise concerns, they don’t understand autism or mutism they raise concerns, they see a reading book for a younger child and raise concerns. They ‘accidentally’ forget to ask you something and raise concerns. Now, we know this isn’t the majority of LAs, as most no longer do home visits, but some of those that do demand visits do these kind of things. They make you fear for your safety and right to home educate. If this is how they behave now when visits are completely optional, what will it be like in the worst areas when they have a right to demand entry into your home? Will they be trained in all styles of home education? or all types of SEN? Will they be DBS checked? Will they have the right to look around the home, or in the child’s bedroom? What happens if your child could suffer mentally or physically from allowing a stranger into the home? Where is the protection against this being misused?

Section 3 then allows the LA to use the reason for refusing a home visit as a concern!

Currently if you are providing a suitable education, have provided the LA info about the education but refuse to bow to ridiculous demands and you’re served an SAO you can refuse to sign your child up to school and allow the LA to take you to court. In court you can demonstrate how the education is suitable and hopefully have the case found in your favour. If the court finds in the LAs favour you could end up with a criminal record, and a fine. The proposed bill under 436Q strengthens this punishment with bigger fines and possible prison. This could be for failing to provide info for the register, or not allowing a home visit, or not providing information about a suitable education. This will mean fewer people attempt to have an unnecessary SAO revoked and give in and send their child to school even if home education was best for their child. But the bad LAs will know this, and weaponise it.

An amendment that was made was to add in that an SAO can not be served if the only reason was that there was a child protection plan or enquiry for one, unless there are other concerns such as suitability of education or a lack of info given for the register.

We should say that thankfully, many LAs are agreeing with home educators that this bill is not fit for purpose and will burden them with masses of paperwork and will not protect children. If you feel able you could write to your EHE team to ask them to contact the DfE about their concerns.

These are just the main points, there are many more specifics which you can view here, please note this link takes you to the Educational Freedom scrutiny committee submission, which was based on the original version of the bill, which means the page numbers and some references no longer line up with the current version found here.

Please get writing to your MP and the Lords, you can make a difference here. Power in numbers as they say.

And finally, for those wanting to see the exact wording changes in the bill, see below, underlined means this was added to the bill.

436I School attendance orders 

(2) But a local authority must not serve an order under this section on a child’s parent if— (a) either— 20 (i) condition B was the only condition cited in the preliminary notice served under section 436H in relation to the child, or (ii) 25 condition B and another condition were cited in that preliminary notice, but the child’s parent has satisfied the local authority that the child is receiving suitable education, (b) the local authority is no longer conducting enquiries or taking 30 action in respect of the child as mentioned in section 436H(5)(a), and (c) the local authority is not aware of any other enquiries being made under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 or of any other action being taken under section 47(8) of that Act in respect of the child. 

This means if the LA are satisfied a suitable education is in place, you have registered provided the info for the register and the only criteria you meet is for Child protection plan enquiries or a plan in place they can not serve an SAO. 

436P Revocation of school attendance order

(2) The local authority must revoke the order if— (a) the order was served following a preliminary notice under 5 section 436H in which the only condition cited was condition B, (b) the local authority is no longer conducting enquiries or taking 10 action in respect of the child as mentioned in section 436H(5)(a), and (c) the local authority is not aware of any other enquiries being made under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 or of any other action being taken under section 47(8) of that Act in respect of the child.

SAO must be revoked if child protection enquiries or plan was the only reason for serving it. 

(3) The person on whom the order is served may at any time request the local authority to revoke the order on the ground that arrangements have been made— (a) for the child to receive suitable education otherwise than at a school, where the order was served— (i) as a result of the person failing to satisfy the local authority that the child is receiving suitable education, or (ii) as a result of the person failing to satisfy the local authority both that the child is receiving suitable education and that it is in the best interests of the child to receive education otherwise than by regular attendance at school, where subsection (2)(b) and (c) applies; 

As above

436Q Offence of failure to comply with school attendance order 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—, (c) section 436H(5)(a) is no longer met in respect of the child, 4where the order was served following a preliminary notice under section 436H which cited only condition B, or (d) both— (i) the person proves that arrangements have been made for the child to receive suitable education otherwise than at a school, and Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 75 Part 2—Schools (ii) section 436H(5)(a) is no longer met in respect of the child, where the order was served following a preliminary notice 5 under section 436H which cited condition B and another condition. 

As above