On the 15th November 2024 Lord Storey did the second reading of the ‘Home School Education Registration and Support Bill.’

What does this mean?

At the moment this is not a major concern, but something to keep an eye on as the Government are looking to implement a Children’s Well-being Bill instead and it is unlikely the bill being discussed here will amount to anything. However, the misconceptions and attitudes need addressing.

The Children’s Well-being Bill will include a register of children not in school. THIS WILL INCLUDE home educated children. We are not happy about that, and to be honest you shouldn’t be happy either. We all know children being home educated are not the same as children missing from education, which the register aims to identify. You can write to your MP as we explain here, to discuss why home educators should not be included in the register.

Here you can read the short transcript of the discussion in the Lords, and below you can read our email to each member who had input into the discussion.

---

“Dear xx 

May I briefly explain who I am, I am a co-owner of Educational Freedom, the UK home education information and support service. We have reached millions of people, supported tens of thousands of home educators and have worked with most Local Authority EHE departments since our creation 11 years ago. 

We recently carried out an extensive research project, to which I will refer to in this email, please see attached. 

We would like to invite you to meet with one of our team to discuss the home education Bill recently read in the House of Lords. We believe you and your peers may have some misunderstandings around home education and what you feel the Bill could achieve. We feel it would be beneficial to discuss the below points and invite you to meet virtually or in person. 

From the recent Bill reading we wish to raise the following points:

The incorrect use of the term home schooling (child registered at school but unable to attend so the school/LA provide the education at home) instead of home education (child not registered at school and the parent is legally responsible for the education). Using the term home schooling when referring to home education is often used to cause confusion and relay the expectation of school at home, it is a term the home education community as a general rule tries to avoid. 

Lord Lucas said ‘…thousands of children’s whereabouts are simply unknown because they have never attended school.’ we respectfully point out that there is no evidence to suggest these children are at any risk of harm or not receiving a suitable education, it should also be noted from our own research LAs do not currently keep accurate CME or EHE records despite having ample ability to do so, some LAs manage to keep accurate records using current legislation.

Many LAs conflate EHE and CME, and misreport their data, we believe focus should be on LAs improving their service under the current legislation rather than further limitations on EHE families. 

‘… parents said they were going to be home-educated and then simply withdrew them from school…’ may we respectfully point out that these children are known to the LA EHE team as the school should forward the details of the child, the LA has the legal right to make enquiries of those families. If schools or LAs are losing these children’s data then this is an issue they need to fix. There is no requirement to discuss wanting to home educate, and no permission is required. In the instances where a family does discuss this with school they are usually met with hostility, misinformation and threats. There is usually no benefit to discussing the decision to home educate. 

Parent’s can’t just say they home educate and that be the end of the matter, the LA has within its power, the ability to make enquiries about the educational provision and ultimately serve an SAO should they have concerns. 

Even if there were the estimated 80,000 extra children home educated and unknown to their LA, there is no reason to believe they are at risk of harm or unsuitable education. 

I am afraid the belief that many LAs have a positive relationship with their home educating families is incorrect. We believe that only around 5 LAs within the UK act within the law or provide anything that could be considered support. In our recent research you will read the experience families have with their EHE team. 

We recently liaised with one LA who claimed they were respected and liked within the community, that their policy was inline with the law and they were supportive, however the feedback given to us by local families was that the EHE person was a bully, threatening and had had police action initiated for intimidation. This LA refuses to engage with services wishing to improve the offering and claimed our research was not accurate. This LA has seen families choose to move to other LAs to avoid having to communicate with them. 

Another is well known for serving S437(1) on families who choose not to meet with them, despite having no concerns about the provision this LA insists on threatening SAO until the family backs down and allows them into their home, they have no regard for disabilities or education being suitable despite not following a school type approach. 

These are just 2 examples of how LAs are not acting within the law, which I hope helps explain why families choose to stay unknown if they can. It would be desperately unfair to force families to communicate with LAs that treat their home educators like this. 

We truly believe it is important to identify children who are CME, but this should not be at the detriment of children who are home educated. Which we believe, until LAs are forced to act in accordance with the law and EHE guidance, a register will cause significant harm to these children and their families. 

It is vital the voice of the home educated child be heard, which we do not feel it currently is. Many home educated children had a negative experience in school, then faced with an EHE officer who forces their way into the home, starts making demands of the child, or threatens the child with an SAO, this further traumatises the child and the family. The home educated children who are learning at a suitable level for their abilities (and possible SEN) are admonished by the EHE person, told they should be learning at a higher age level, they are then left feeling like a failure. Again, these are just some of the examples of how LAs behave towards their known home educators. 

The voice of the child who wants to be home educated in a way that suits them, is missing from this conversation, the children who chose home education for various reasons, the children who school failed, or has SEN ignored. Their voices need to be heard, and we are able to facilitate that should you wish to meet with us. 

Lord Watson talks about the negative reasons families start home education, in our research you will see the vast majority who stated a negative reason actually continue home education because they see their child learning and flourishing, usually telling us they wish they had done it sooner, many turn down offers of a school place that became available at another school as they now see home education as a positive thing. Focus should be on fixing the school system instead of punishing home educators who remove their child from the broken system. 

It should also be noted that choosing not to have state interference does not equate to not wanting their child to be safe. The law requires the parent to ensure the child receives a suitable education at school or otherwise. There is no evidence that supports the accusation that home educating parents are not fulfilling this duty. LAs have ample rights to serve SAO when there are concerns, these concerns clearly do not exist in the quantity you infer.  Our FOI quoted in the attached research shows that SAOs are served on a very small minority of families, as concerns are not there after making enquiries about the provision. It should also be noted that the average % is significantly higher due to a small number of LAs misusing their SAO power. There is no reason to believe the statistics would be any different if all home educators were known to their LA. 

We understand the need for illegal schools to be brought inline with the law, but home educating families should not be penalised for a school not following the registration rules. 

Lord Lucas then goes on to talk about support, it should be noted that a very small number offer any kind of support, but as can be seen in our research, for the most part, home educators do not want support from the LA. They know the EHE person is usually an ex teacher, the resources suggested are often school type learning, or in the worst cases the EHE will recommend a resource then claim the family have ignored their recommendation and therefore the education is unsuitable, despite the resource not suiting the child. Support is difficult to offer, and we believe having publicly available information, available to access by any home educator should they choose to, is the only suitable way to offer support of this kind. We recently heard from one family that was told the child must sign up to GCSEs now and be learning the content despite only being 11 years old and still finishing Key Stage 2 content, this was an error on the EHE persons part, but carried on into the next enquiry as the file was not updated, and temporarily the education was deemed unsuitable, the LA ignored the request from the parent to rectify the issue, we, Educational Freedom had to step in to ensure this was fixed. 

We also wish to point out that a family choosing not to be visible to the LA, choosing not to take up offers of support or attend LA organised events, does not infer any problems. There are ample resources, support and events that do not involve the LA in any way. 

We thank Lord Lucas for raising the point that rogue and ‘demonic’ LAs should be held accountable. We work hard to ensure home educators are treated fairly, but when we speak with an EHE manager who says ‘I don’t care what the law says, I will do whatever I want.’ it makes it very difficult as there is no consequence for the LA behaving in this way. 

Lord Desai brings up religion in a way that infers it is a majority of home educators, yet as can be seen in our extensive research, religion does not play a part in the vast majority of home educators lives. Whilst we do acknowledge many of those who follow a religious based education may not have taken part in our survey, we do believe they are a small minority. These families are usually known to the LA in the same way a non-religious family are, the LA have the same ability to make enquiries about the provision. And the same ability to raise concerns. Using them to force all home educated children on to a register will not change how the LA make enquiries.  What would make a change is ensuring every LA acts within the law, that they can be trusted, that they are all supportive, this would in turn mean home educators would talk more freely with them without fear of ultra vires or threatening behaviour. 

We appreciate Lord Bishop of Herefordshire’s comments around the unpredictability of LAs, hostile is a good description of a large number of LAs. Which reinforces our position that a register will not do what it is being designed to do. It will in fact force many families into poverty as they will have to move home, to move out of bad LA areas, we see this all too often. 
An example of a case we have supported with: the parents lived in a high rise, with a Muslim sounding surname, the children were thriving with a varied and amazing education and life experiences. They chose not to meet the EHE team, and instead sent detailed written information about the education. The EHE person immediately referred to children’s services despite having no safeguarding concerns. The social worker closed the case immediately. S437(1) was served stating not meeting the EHE was a concern, the LA were not interested in understanding the educational provision suitability in any other way than coming to the home. An SAO was served and the court dismissed it without hearing it as no concerns about the provision were stated. The family then endured a year of doorstepping by more than 7 different people, more children’s services referrals, another SAO, and eventually the family decided the only way to avoid this was to move home. They now live in an LA that welcomes their annual update in writing and leaves them in peace. What the original LA did not know was the mother’s sister also home educated her children, with a traditionally English surname and a ‘better’ postcode within the same LA, the two families shared the education, all 7 children across both families were educated together, went to the same museums, met with the same music tutor, learned maths the same way etc. But the sister was not harassed in the same way despite also choosing not to have a visit. The EHE person still runs an EHE department and still harasses families unnecessarily. 

Baroness Gohir goes on to raise ‘mandatory checks’ however, having read the above and our research, we ask if this is still something considered appropriate? LAs cause immeasurable harm that it should not be encouraged that they be allowed to do more harm. How would a mandatory check take place? Would the child be tested, or expected to perform for the stranger in their home? Will the person doing the checks have training and experience of all styles of home education? Will they be trained in all disabilities and special educational needs? Will there be exceptions where a check could cause serious harm to the child or parent? How would a once a year check ensure the child is safe and suitably educated when children are leaving school unable to read, being abused and harmed under the nose of teachers who see the child every day? We have to accept that it is the parents responsibility to ensure the child is safe and suitably educated, changing the narrative from mandatory checks to offering a supportive open access service would produce far better results. More families, who are struggling, would reach out if it was guaranteed their EHE person would provide help and support instead of harassment and judgement. 

The Baroness explains the reasons for choosing home education are unknown in a large number of cases, we wish to shed light on this. Many home education support services and groups suggest families do not give a reason for home educating, because in a large number of LA areas a negative reason is used against the family. In one LA area they lie to families, they claim that they can not home educate when the child has SEN not met in school, in another they claim they need to send their child to another school as they can’t home educate because the child had issues with attendance, another, when told they are home educating as they do not agree with the rules of that particular school goes on to name a school and claims it is a legal order and they must send their child to that school. Negative reasons are often responded to with untruths or judgement. Recently a family reached out to us as they deregistered because their child was struggling mentally and couldn’t go to school, they informed the EHE team of this, and was immediately told the home education was therefore unsuitable because if the child wouldn’t go to school they would therefore also refuse to engage with home education. Despite demonstrating a suitable education was taking place, the LA are still pursuing the family with threats of an SAO based on previous school attendance. 
Our research shows a more accurate reflection of the reasons for choosing home education, as the respondents were under no risk from being honest. 

Regrettably Baroness Whitaker is mistaken in her comment that those home educating well have nothing to fear from a register. Unfortunately this is not the case. There can be a whisper of a register, or proposed change to EHE guidance, or a proposed change to another related guidance, it will then often trigger some LAs to change their policy and procedures inline with the proposals, many claiming a new law exists before any official changes are made, this practice shows that LAs will quickly use changes to further harass and harm home educators, the overbearing LAs will feel supported in their actions and those LAs who tread a thin line between support and threatening will, without much effort, move swiftly closer to being harmful. A saying often heard in the home education community is ‘nothing to hide but everything to protect’, we should not have to fear the LA, we should not have to hope to stay unknown, we should not be riddled with anxiety when the LA demands to visit the home, or when they deem the education unsuitable because of their own ignorance or unrealistic expectations. 

The Baroness appears to not understand the deregistration process as she raises the concern about notifying the LA, the current legislation requires the school to notify the LA that a child has been removed from roll, regardless of the reason. If the child is removed to be home educated they would inform the EHE team about the child. If schools are not following the correct process then that is an issue to fix with schools, not home educators. 

Baroness Burt of Solihull unfortunately incorrectly refers to it as home schooling, in our experience this incorrect use of language furthers the misunderstandings of what home education is. 

It is important that dealing with illegal schools is kept separate from the discussion of home education, the two whilst tentatively linked, are not matters to be discussed in the same breathe.

Whilst harm, or the death of any child is upsetting, these cases are never because a child was home educated. They happened because a parent failed the child, and the Local Authority departments failed to adequately utilise their existing powers. These children were known, a register would not have protected them. 

Baroness Baron explains 3 groups of children educated at home, the third however are not actually educated at home, they are CME and therefore not within the remit of EHE. This further reiterates our point that including EHE children in a register is unnecessary. CME should be addressed, but not at the detriment of home educators.  The Baroness mentions a register would support struggling home educators, we do not believe this would be the case at all and welcome further discussion on this. 

We ask how will a register identify children who are missing education or are a safeguarding risk? The only way we see this happening is by introducing intrusive questioning of those who home educate. But how will this work when LAs do not currently respect all the styles of home education, or understand disabilities? How will the government ensure badly behaved LAs are held accountable, because as things stand there is no consequence to LAs who use SAO as a threat to force a family to comply with ultra vires demands. 

We absolutely agree that home educators and services like ours should be involved in drafting any policies, though truly believe including home educators in the register will not achieve what is hoped. 

Baroness Smith of Malvern raises some interesting points, however we are concerned at the lack of understanding of how the EHE guidance is currently misused around the country, ‘A local authority may request different types of evidence to help demonstrate that education provision is suitable. That could include samples of work, a meeting with the child, or a visit to the home.’ The important thing to realise with this is that many LAs demand information be given in a certain format, ignoring the family choice, ignoring the needs of the child, and ignoring information given in a format not in the way the LA demanded. A large number of LAs use this as a way to force entry into the home, or to threaten an SAO for none compliance (even if the family provided information in another format). Enforcing a meeting, or samples of learning, does not respect the multiple styles of home education, or lifestyles, or SEND (of child or parent). Page 18 of the EHE guidance further supports this ‘Of course, the local authority should give reasonable weight to information provided by parents, on its own merits. For example, an authority should not dismiss information provided by parents simply because it is not in a particular form preferred by the authority (eg, a report by a qualified teacher).’

The Baroness discusses mental health, parents being unable to provide for the child etc, however misses the point that many of these children were absent from school for long periods of time with no education being provided by the school, that these children are often suicidal in school. It is important to remember the home education must be suitable to the individual child, this may not appear anything like a school education, but if the child is no longer suicidal and is engaging in some learning, this is a massive improvement on what was being achieved whilst registered at school. Parent’s who deregister their children are doing so to do what is best for their child. Instead of receiving threats from the EHE team, who have no specialist training on children’s mental health, the Government should be focusing on why children are leaving school with such horrible mental health issues. A home educated child who is alive aged 16 without any GCSEs is a far better outcome than a schooled child who takes their own life aged 13. 

We are confused by the following ‘The noble Lord’s Bill would require parents to provide information for children not in school registers, but it does not include a consequence if parents do not fulfil their legal duty. We think it is vital that local authorities can take action if parents attempt to evade registration—actions such as initiating the school attendance order process. Where a child is not receiving suitable education, the school attendance order process gives them a route to a suitable education through regular attendance at a named school.’  It should be noted that the current legislation does not require a family to make themselves known, but if the LA becomes aware of the child they make enquiries to ascertain how the child is educated, and can ultimately serve an SAO. How will the register differ from this current process? It appears to read exactly the same. Except home educators who are providing a suitable education will make themselves known (because they wish to be law abiding) and now be subject to the postcode lottery of what kind of LA they have, this in turn increases the workload for the LA. Those with children not in receipt of a suitable education will choose to stay unknown, they will not willingly put themselves in the firing line, they will wait it out and hope to not become known. The register will not improve the situation for anyone. 

We are not sure why the numbers of home educators is constantly referred to as rising significantly as our data shows a similar increase every year since we started gathering the data in 2013. We do not believe COVID played any major part in the current number of home educators beyond opening the eyes to options beyond school for some. We do believe the strict unnecessary rules in academies, the pressure to sit a dozen GCSEs, the lack of play based learning in primary school, the unmet needs of SEN children all play a large part in the increase. However, what we believe to be the most impactful reason is parents becoming aware of there being a choice thanks to social media. Like anything, if people become aware of it, more people will choose it. We do not believe there is anything wrong or sinister with the increase in numbers, it is not something to be fixed. Though focus should be on fixing school issues so those who do not want to home educate can find a school suitable to their child. 

‘… this Government’s proposals would not give local authorities additional powers to mandate the content of home education.’ The Baroness wrongly gives trust to local authorities here, our extensive experience shows that LAs will use the register as a  means of further forcing their own agenda as they already are. 

We appreciate your time reading our correspondence, and truly believe a conversation would help improve your understanding of home education, and how to address the issues raised. 

We welcome your response. 

Best wishes

www.Educationalfreedom.org.uk”.

---