Is Home Education Really a Safeguarding Concern? Social Workers’ Perspectives
In our experience, it is not. The social workers we interviewed consistently stated that home education, in itself, is not a safeguarding issue. Even the government’s own research shows that home education is not a reason to be concerned about a child’s wellbeing.
However, government reviews and the media have repeatedly seized upon certain high-profile child deaths and implied that home education played a role. In reality, these children would sadly have been harmed regardless of whether they were registered at school. In each case, services failed to protect the child long before education was a factor.
Reviews involving children not in education often highlight risks associated with being missing from education (CME). Yet, within these complex and disjointed reports, it becomes clear that being home educated does not increase this risk. Home education is repeatedly and unfairly conflated with children who are missing education and require intervention. Home education has become an easy scapegoat. Despite strong and vocal opposition from home-educating families, the government continues pushing for restrictions that will not protect vulnerable children, and may in fact expose many more to harm.
We interviewed several social workers to gather insight into how home education is viewed within the profession and their thoughts on the proposed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Theresa explained that her experience as a foster carer showed her how limited many social workers’ understanding of special educational needs (SEN) truly is. School was treated as the only acceptable option, even when it was clearly damaging to the child. After adopting her son Jamie, she became increasingly involved with his education—but school repeatedly breached his safety by sharing his images publicly and refused to acknowledge his needs. No secondary school could meet his requirements, particularly around uniform and rigid rules. Despite being told he would “just have to get over it,” she knew he wouldn’t. She deregistered him, and years later retrained as a social worker herself.
Hannah realised during COVID lockdown that structured schooling was not appropriate for her children. They learned far more through life, exploration, and hands-on experiences. When schools reopened, her Year 7 daughter developed clear EBSA and was subjected to severe bullying. With school unable to provide understanding or support, Hannah deregistered. Her daughter then hit burnout, prompting Hannah to rebuild her self-esteem gradually, following her interests. Although she returned to school in Year 9, Hannah is unsure she will remain. Hannah’s autistic son is now struggling in primary school, and she anticipates needing to home educate him through secondary. She has been unable to return to social work due to prioritising her children’s needs.
Kelly explained that the pandemic made her reassess her direction in life. She chose social work in 2021 to help struggling families. She began home educating in 2012 and continued until her son started college in 2024. Home education had been on her mind since her eldest—diagnosed autistic at age 3—began struggling in primary school. She only felt “brave enough” to deregister when she realised her daughter would not emotionally survive secondary school. Her youngest child, at just five years old, had already begun self-harming to avoid school.
Jamie’s social workers often told Theresa she “must be mad” to have him at home every day, assuming it must be exhausting and negative. The opposite was true. With home education, Jamie remained calm throughout the day, eliminating after-school meltdowns. There were no more calls about behavioural incidents, no more punishments for unmet sensory needs, and he learned at a pace and level that suited him, including self-understanding.
Theresa found that many local authority departments rely heavily on agency social workers, meaning families rarely have consistent support. Mistakes are common. Even when social workers appear to listen to her explain home education and the benefits and legalities, they often revert to the belief that school is the only legitimate environment for learning. They are deeply indoctrinated into trusting school above all else, regardless of the harm it may cause a child.
A year into home education, a visiting social worker insisted she could “find the right school for Jamie,” ignoring the family’s decision to continue home educating. Home education was treated as a problem to solve. Another social worker had to be removed from the case because she pushed Jamie to think about school, college, and work, despite the fact that he was still learning to cross roads safely and avoid entering strangers’ homes.
Hannah admitted she had very little knowledge of home education when working as a social worker—she wasn’t even sure it was legal. She acknowledges that she wouldn’t have been able to advise parents considering it, despite being someone who actively seeks out accurate information. She believes that most social workers lack this instinct and instead make assumptions, panic, and take overly risk-averse actions out of fear and misunderstanding. She feels that social worker training should include at least the basics: home education is legal, and it does not have to resemble school. “Knowing what I know now would make me act differently,” she said. “Back then, I probably would have expected structured learning.”
Kelly has mostly encountered positive or curious reactions among colleagues. Many social workers witness frequent “school refusal” cases where children struggle with mainstream education, so hearing the perspective of a social worker who successfully home educated is valuable. She has not encountered strong opposition from colleagues.
Theresa added that she is currently working on a case involving children who cannot attend their registered school. She has had to put in significant work to persuade another social worker to accept that school is not the right environment for these children. While they cannot be home educated due to being fostered, they can be educated at home if the school and local authority act promptly and appropriately.
According to Theresa, many social workers automatically see home education as a red flag. They assume the child is not learning unless presented with evidence. They believe the child will lack socialisation. They misuse the term “home school” and refer to home-educated children as “hidden,” even when these children are known to both Elective Home Education (EHE) teams and children’s services.
Hannah believes that anything outside the norm is often treated as inherently suspicious, reflecting broader systemic bias.
Kelly is clear: home education should not be a safeguarding concern when there is no existing social care involvement. Even when there is involvement, each case should be judged individually.
Theresa believes they absolutely should. As a duty social worker, she frequently received referrals triggered simply by deregistration. She would call the school, and if there was no evidence, she closed the case. But she notes that many social workers would open investigations despite no genuine concerns based solely on their lack of understanding of home education and that the EHE team have the tools necessary to intervene if necessary.
Kelly agrees: “Schools who report it as a concern when there are no other safeguarding issues should face consequences and be educated on the legal right to home educate.”
We discussed the requirement for consent to deregister where children’s services are or have been involved.
Theresa believes a nuanced approach is essential.
Hannah finds the bill intrusive and vague. Its practical success would depend heavily on who makes the decisions and how trained they are—which, at present, is wholly inadequate. Safeguarding alone cannot dictate these decisions, because school can be the source of harm. She argues that social workers should support families, not gatekeep deregistration. Consent requirements blur legal boundaries and disempower parents. She warns that without major reform of LA departments, the bill could cause serious harm.
Kelly explains that many families have CP or CIN histories unrelated to parenting ability. Preventing them from home educating could prolong children’s suffering by forcing them into harmful environments. She emphasises that most social workers and EHE officers are not qualified to make these decisions except in extreme cases of real neglect or abuse. Forcing school attendance where there is no evidence of significant harm would increase strain on families.
Theresa sees the register requirements as excessive and harmful. She sees no justification for collecting details about every adult involved in the child’s education or every group attended. She does not believe a register is necessary at all and notes there is no evidence that children unknown to authorities are at higher risk.
Hannah agrees: the register and its content requirements are unnecessary and do nothing to enhance safety. Tutors and groups should not be obligated to provide information, and parents should not be forced into excessive paperwork that diverts time from their children.Which in turn will divert EHE team resources away from the families who actually need them.
Kelly adds that the invasive level of information appears deliberately designed to deter potential home-educating families. She stresses that, in the UK, parents apply for school places—the default legal position is that education is the parents’ responsibility, and school is an option, not the starting point. The decision to home educate is not taken lightly and the vast majority of home educating parents are doing it due to strong beliefs that it is in the best interests of their child.
The social workers we interviewed unanimously felt that the proposed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is not fit for purpose. They believe it will be misused, will fail to protect the children who genuinely need safeguarding interventions, and will worsen negative attitudes toward home-educating families. The bill demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of elective home education, especially for families for whom home education is a last resort. Yet it offers no meaningful support to these families—only barriers.
Staffordshire website design and website SEO by Fellowship Studios.
