Over the last few days we’ve been accused of “scaremongering”, “fearmongering”, acting like a tabloid, and even told the news is good because it will safeguard children — all because of the information we’ve shared about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill this week.
Some of these accusations are coming from within the home educating community itself. Others are from ‘well-meaning’ teachers, professionals, parents, or people who simply came across our posts. Many are clearly bots — something fairly new to us since our posts went viral this time.
Below we briefly explain why we do what we do, why we were not fearmongering or wrong, and what we should all do next.
Home education campaigners (including us) have warned for years that legislation like this was coming — that allowing Local Authorities to overstep now would lead to devastating changes later.
That has now happened.
Some groups and ‘influencers’ soften messaging. Some even ban posts discussing politics entirely, others even encouraging allowing the EHE to overstep either because they’re nice or the fight is too hard.
That approach can mislead families into believing the changes are minor or manageable when they are anything but.
Social media groups are full of conflicting or overly optimistic interpretations of legislation. We provide a stark counterpoint to that — and yes, that can be jarring.
Large numbers of families only engage when a threat feels urgent. That is why we used such a strong approach.
A blunt headline makes people stop scrolling and actually read the issue rather than ignoring it.
Home educators in relatively reasonable Local Authorities — those with positive relationships with their LA — often struggle to understand how serious the problem can be elsewhere.
Others live in areas where overreach is routine, but have come to believe it is normal or acceptable.
They simply are not seeing what we see every day.
Many people claiming we are wrong, or that the bill is a good thing, do not home educate at all (many do not even have children). Occasionally it is a home educator — and we try to reach them with the facts.
The bill is now in its late stages. The decisions affecting home education have largely been made.
Supporters say Educational Freedom were simply honest about that reality rather than offering false hope that the bill could easily be stopped. They appreciate our no-nonsense approach.
We have also made it clear that the next major battle will be the EHE guidance consultation.
Strong messaging pushes families to prepare early — to understand the law and learn their rights.
Finding out the truth now, while there is still time to prepare, is far easier than discovering the consequences a year from now when the law is in force.
When an LA officer is standing on your doorstep.
When the wording in letters has changed.
When threats escalate — and you had no idea the rules had changed.
It is better to understand the reality now than to bury heads in the sand.
This affects home educators. They deserve to know the truth.
Campaigning often requires strong language to create urgency, attract attention, and mobilise people.
Supporters see our article as campaign messaging — not a neutral policy briefing.
And we have never claimed to be neutral.
We don’t do frills.
We don’t sugar-coat.
We don’t pretend problems don’t exist.
We share the facts — and the reality of how systems operate in the real world.
That includes how legislation can be interpreted, stretched, and misused once it lands in the hands of Local Authorities.
Sometimes we say it loudly — partly to get your attention, and partly so the world watching knows we will never give in without a fight.
When the reality is laid out clearly, it can be frightening. We know that. We see the anxiety it causes and we are genuinely sorry when people feel overwhelmed.
People who do not do the work we do simply do not see the scale of the problem.
They do not see the tens of thousands of families harmed by unlawful or coercive Local Authority practices.
They do not read our casework and research showing how some LAs routinely overstep the law, misuse the School Attendance Order process, or pressure families back into school when home education is perfectly suitable.
If that sounds exaggerated, let’s look at a real example.
In Portsmouth around 60% of home educating families received a Section 437(1) notice in a year (this is meant to be used when there are genuine concerns about the suitability of the education).
The national average is roughly 5% but there are dozens who far exceed that.
There is obviously not a mass crisis of unsuitable education in Portsmouth. So why are so many families being threatened?
Because some Local Authorities use these powers for control and coercion.
Families who resist unlawful demands are often served a School Attendance Order despite providing suitable education. Most parents do not want the stress or cost of court, so they give in.
The LA wins.
Other Local Authorities even cite Portsmouth as a “good example.”
Yet some areas with larger home education communities issue zero Section 437 enquiries or SAOs.
The difference is not the children.
The difference is the Local Authority, often down to the personality of the EHE person! The safety of home educators relies solely on the person in charge, they don’t care what the law says. In fact one LA told a member of our team ‘I don’t care what the law says, I will do whatever I want’. A Yorkshire LA recently publicly stated they will do anything possible to bring down the number of home educators.
Whilst there are ‘good’ LAs right now, who is to say they will be that good in a months time?
Who’s to say the EHE person from Portsmouth isn’t going to move areas and terrorise another community?
We know a London EHE person who has moved and taken her terror with her, causing families to actually move to other LA areas to avoid the harassment.
Another is known to be racist and has resulted in some families breaking up to get the children to a safer LA area!
And under the new powers proposed in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, those same authorities would have even more power over families.
Portsmouth is just one example — and the people criticising us don’t see this.
They are not on the phone to the mother sobbing because the LA demand visits every 6 weeks despite clear evidence her children are thriving.
They are not calling the EHE management for a mum who has locked herself and her children in the bathroom as the 2 EHE officers have been there for 2 hours and refusing to leave despite her numerous requests.
They are not speaking to the confused police officer sent to a family’s house after an LA called 999 because parents declined an unannounced visit they were never legally required to accept.
They are not helping a dyslexic parent draft a report late at night after an LA demanded a form be completed — then declared the information “inadequate” and threatened escalation within five days (not required).
They are not explaining to families that the demands in the letters they received are not supported by legislation.
They are not trying to persuade social workers that home education alone is not a safeguarding concern.
They are not analysing how Local Authorities misuse Section 437 enquiries and SAO powers.
They are not writing the guidance, newsletters, research, and resources thousands of families rely on.
They are not organising petitions, meeting the Department for Education, training Local Authorities, or lobbying in the House of Lords.
When someone’s only experience is their own positive situation, it is easy to assume everything is fine.
“I’m alright, so there’s nothing to worry about” does not protect the 100,000+ other home educating families — the vast majority of whom do not live under a particularly good Local Authority.
But we see the problems every single day.
We have been doing this work for a long time.
Millions of people have accessed our information and resources.
We estimate more than 100,000 families have received direct one-to-one support from our team.
They tell us they appreciate our straight-to-the-point style.
They appreciate the honesty.
They appreciate the enormous amount of work our team does — for free.
They are grateful when we help revoke a wrongly issued School Attendance Order.
Grateful when we provide the information needed to help them demonstrate their child’s education is suitable.
Grateful for the late-night messages, the countless hours spent on cases, and the genuine passion behind the work.
Very few people dislike how we operate — but those voices are often the loudest. When invited to actually join the fight for home educators, they usually go quiet.
Our perspective does not come from one experience.
It comes from thousands upon thousands of cases handled by a large team supporting families across the country.
Local Authorities already have safeguarding powers.
Schools already have safeguarding duties.
Social Services already have extensive powers to intervene when a child is at risk.
When a child is deregistered from school the LA is notified. They can raise welfare concerns and make enquiries about the education.
The tragic death of Sara Sharif has understandably shaken the country. But it is important to be honest about what happened.
Multiple agencies already had the legal powers necessary to protect her.
Those systems failed.
When schools fail to follow safeguarding procedures, when Local Authorities fail to act on concerns, and when social services fail to intervene, the problem is not a lack of powers.
The problem is the failure to use them properly.
Yet the narrative has shifted so that home educators — families lawfully exercising their right to educate their children otherwise than at school — are portrayed as the problem.
More monitoring, more registration, and more oversight of home-educating families is presented as the solution.
But the truth is this: Sara Sharif was deregistered from school. That should already have triggered scrutiny. Home education could have actually saved her, if EHE had gone to the right house!
The failure was not the absence of legislation.
The failure was the failure to use it.
And now, instead of fixing those systemic failures, new legislation risks placing greater pressure on law-abiding home-educating families — many of whom already face unlawful demands from Local Authorities.
It is suggested that more monitoring, more registration, and more oversight of home educating families would somehow prevent tragedies like this.
Politicians and media claim the bill will protect “hidden” harmed home educated children.
But decades of data gathering have still not produced evidence that home educated children are at greater risk.
Children who are known to services can already be removed from unsafe homes or required to attend school.
When tragedies occur, it is usually because services failed to act — not because they lacked powers.
If the government really wanted what was best for home educators they would fix the problem with LAs overstepping, harassing and lying. They would ensure the role of EHE was one of support and guidance rather than dictating a school at home approach despite it not being right for the child.
The bill itself is only part of the story.
Next comes secondary legislation and revised EHE guidance.
We have already shown how some Local Authorities behave with the powers they have now.
Imagine those same authorities with more power.
Will they demand children perform for inspectors? Recite timetables? Show their bedrooms? Speak to strangers?
Who decides whether a non-verbal child “cooperated”?
Who understands dyslexia when a child refuses to read aloud?
What about the autistic child who could have a meltdown if a stranger starts quizzing them?
Or the suicidal teenager who was failed so badly by school they struggle to leave their bedroom and is suddenly faced with a stranger in their bedroom doorway?
What will stop power-hungry Local Authorities causing serious harm?
We will fight it.
And we will make sure as many of you as possible learn how to stand up for yourselves.
If that means people feel uncomfortable for a while — so be it.
Current law already requires parents to ensure education is suitable.
Schools must inform LAs when children are deregistered.
LAs can make enquiries and issue School Attendance Orders where necessary.
Used properly, those systems should prevent unsuitable education and protect children.
But they are not always used properly.
That is why we speak up.
Not to cause panic.
Not to exaggerate.
But to ensure people understand both the law as it stands — and the real risks that poorly designed or poorly implemented legislation can create.
Because once laws are passed and systems are built around them, the consequences will not exist in theory.
They will be felt in the homes of real families.
And by then, it may be too late to have the conversation we should be having now.
Our next post will be a very simplified version of what the changes will mean.
Make sure to find us on social media.
Staffordshire website design and website SEO by Fellowship Studios.
