Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

 Written evidence submitted by Gemma Keenan to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB06).

I am writing to you today concerning the Wellbeing and Schools bill. As a home educating family I felt it important to raise my voice and concerns on this bill, as I find a lot of I to be entirely damaging to the home educating community. Conflating home education and children missing education is entirely inappropriate. Thank you for hearing my thoughts on this issue, I have tried to be as concise as possible, and have included personal examples from our home educating life.

There is no need for a home education register since local authorities (LAs) already maintain one. The proposed register excludes children who are missing education, meaning it won’t help protect those children. When children are deregistered from school, they are already known to the LA and included in their records. LAs can investigate the education being provided, issue a notice under Section 437(1), and even pursue a School Attendance Order (SAO) if concerns arise. If there are safeguarding issues, LAs can also involve children’s services. If children are currently being overlooked, it’s due to a failure by professionals to properly use the laws already in place. Additionally, the proposed register demands an unrealistic level of detail from home educators, effectively restricting learning styles that don’t follow a strict, school-like timetable, which is how most home education operates.

Section 24 I personally believe to be harmful and should be removed for the following reasons: it requires local authorities (LAs) to refuse consent for deregistration if there is a child protection case or an assessment in progress. This is problematic for families where child protection concerns aren’t related to parenting or the home. Additionally, it gives LAs the power to refuse deregistration from special schools if they decide it’s not in the child’s best interests. This is open to abuse, as schools may provide incorrect information, and the LA isn’t always the best judge of a child’s needs. This section should be rewritten to ensure it addresses each case individually and protects all children. For example, if a child is in a school that doesn’t meet their needs but the school claims otherwise, the LA could block deregistration unfairly.

Section 24 8(b) could harm families, especially where parents are separated due to abuse or other complex situations. 

Section 24 12 automatically denies any new deregistration requests within six months of a previous denial. This is dangerous, as family circumstances and children’s needs can change rapidly. For instance, a child struggling with bullying in school may need to leave sooner than this timeframe allows. 

Overall, Section 24 should be removed. Existing legislation already allows LAs and social services to act quickly if a child is at risk. Adding these restrictions is unnecessary.

Section 25 Registration

A register of home-educated children is unnecessary. LAs already keep lists of home-educated children, and the proposed register does nothing to help identify children missing education.

436C Part 1

The information requested from home educators is excessive as laid out below:

Parts (a) and (b): Schools already pass this information to the LA when a child is deregistered.

Part (d): It’s impossible to quantify home education in hours because it’s flexible, and you will find home educators describe it as happening all day every day. For example, my children might begin the day at 6am by reading and researching a topic, we may then sit down to formal work (workbooks etc) at 8, have an online lesson mid morning, complete topic work through the day, attend an in person group in the afternoon, learn about budgeting, food miles, geography, as we do the shopping, watch a documentary in the evening, practice science & maths as we cook dinner. We likely end the day with more reading and there is a continued conversation running through the day about all the things we are learning. How do we qualify that to the LA beyond the already comprehensive reports we provide? 

Part (e): Most home educators can’t provide the level of detail required. For instance, parents organizing drop-off sessions for group activities would struggle to provide exact details, discouraging these valuable events. This section is concerning, and again shows a lack of understanding of home education from those who wrote it. My children attend various groups with schooled and home educated children, all of these activities are part of my child’s education. This section infers the LA will require these settings to provide the LA with information about home educated children who attend, I expect some groups will cease to be, or end access to home educated children, as it is not their responsibility to ensure suitability of the education. I as their parent choose for my child to go there and I ensure the learning is appropriate. I am the parent. This bill seems to be forgetting that.

Part (iv) under (e) would harm families who rely on shared or informal learning environments, as they can’t meet these demands.

436C Part 2

Part (k): Any additional information requirements should be explicitly written into the bill, not left for secondary legislation.

436C Part 3

LAs should not be allowed to set their own criteria for the register. This would lead to chaos and overreach, as some LAs already misuse their authority. If a register must exist, the criteria should be consistent across all LAs.

436D

1(b): Does this mean both parents must provide the information? This needs clarification.

2(a): LAs should not have unlimited freedom to request information. This needs clear limits, as bad LAs might abuse this power. Putting unnecessary stress on parents and taking away their focus from the child's education, instead focussing on how the education ticks boxes for the LA (not meeting the needs of the child)

2(b): It’s unrealistic to expect home educators to update the LA every time they use a new group, website, tutor, or resource. 

436E

1(a) and (b), along with 3(a) and (b): Requiring unspecified groups to provide information could lead to these groups refusing home-educated children. For example, swimming lessons, scouts, or museum trips might stop accepting home-educated children due to fear of being included in the register. Not all groups know a child is home-educated, as it’s irrelevant to their participation.

For example, a few days ago we went into the village where we live, my child was able to use their maths skills to budget and spend some Christmas money, they were able to count out the correct amount, check their change, and interact with the cashier. He chatted a little to the cashier about Christmas and new year, and the cashier told him some of her family traditions. It was very misty, and on the way home we talked about why mist/fog occurs, when we got home, he went online to look up what causes it, this led to us watching science you tube videos on fog, one of which showed us how to make fog at home in a bottle. He then went around the house finding the materials needed to complete the experiment. It meant he had to get some bottles from the recycling, which sparked a conversation with his younger brother about recycling and what kinds of things we can recycle. This led to another internet search where the youngest and I were able to find out about recycling in our area and plan a visit to the museum of science and industry as he remembered they have a section on recycling. This is just one example of one afternoon. Can you see the ridiculous amount of detail that the register would require in it’s current format? At the moment, annually, i provide a breakdown of the learning, in which i would just state Aidan learned about cloud formation using outings and websites, and Finnian learned about recycling through hands on exploration, websites, and a trip to the museum. This is all the information an LA needs. Would I really be expected to keep such detailed records to be submitted to the LA? Would I be expected to provide details of the cashier he spoke to? Would the LA have enough staff to deal with the paperwork? How will this identify children whose wellbeing needs to be protected? I already provide the LA with information that explains how the education is suitable to age, ability and aptitude. This would require me to take time out from educating my children just to fill in boxes on an unnecessary register. It seems the people who worded the bill do not understand home education nor do they understand the harm it will cause. 

436F

3 and 5: These sections are open to misuse and could harm families relocating to escape poorly managed LAs. Bias and misinformation could follow families to a new area.

436G

1: LAs currently provide inaccurate information, often based on misinterpreted laws or bias. What safeguards will ensure their advice is accurate and suitable for the child? Will they include links to multiple independent home education support services?

2: Leaving the provision of support to LAs’ discretion will mean most will offer nothing.

Schedule 31A

This section relies on parents providing extensive and unreasonable information. Many families won’t be able to meet these demands, leading to fines or even imprisonment under Section 7, simply for educating their child in a way that suits them.

436H

This section is a replacement for Section 437(1) notices but introduces unreasonable requirements.

5(c): Why should the LA decide what is in the child’s best interests?

6: Penalizing parents who cannot provide excessive information, despite no concerns about the education, is unfair.

436I

2(a) and (c): These could be misused to force home visits before a School Attendance Order (SAO) is issued, which already happens. What if a home visit would harm the child, such as a child with autism needing their home as a safe space? What training will visitors have? Isn’t entry without a warrant unlawful?

3: Families may avoid home visits to protect their children, but this could be held against them. With so many families mistreated by LAs, trust is lacking.

436K

This adds unnecessary complexity to the existing Section 437(1) and SAO processes, which are already effective and adequate.

436P

8: Increasing penalties for SAOs is alarming. Currently, parents can challenge an SAO in court, but with higher penalties, fewer families will take that risk, even if the education is suitable. What safeguards will prevent LAs from misusing this process to enforce compliance with their own preferences?

In conclusion, these sections introduce unnecessary, harmful, and overly complicated measures that will disproportionately impact families and children, while doing little to address genuine issues.

Gemma Keenan

January 2025