Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Deepa Naik to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB103)

1. Introduction

1.1. As a parent of a home-educated child, I have seen firsthand the benefits and unique opportunities that home education offers. My submission aims to share these experiences while expressing my deep concerns regarding the provisions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (CWSB), particularly those related to the regulation of home education as outlined in clauses 24–29.

1.2. My daughter, S, is thriving and I fear the devastating impact these proposals could have on families like ours. The excessive State intervention proposed in the Bill undermines the principle that parents should have the primary responsibility for their children’s education unless there is clear evidence of harm or neglect. These provisions threaten to erode legal rights and encroach on family privacy, despite a lack of evidence suggesting that home-educating families present any widespread issues requiring regulation.

2. Context: Why I Chose to Home-Educate and My Child’s Learning Journey

2.1. I made the decision to home-educate my daughter, S, after visiting several educational options, including a local state school, an educational trust, two Montessori schools and a parenting co-operative. I also (reluctantly might I add) attended a home education fair. What became clear to me, was how home education stood out compared to traditional schooling. The home-educated children I observed were bright, curious, and happy, pursuing their own interests while balancing life skills and academics. As a result, my husband and I decided to home education our child.

2.2 I didn’t feel comfortable leaving my daughter at the school gates, particularly between the ages of 4 and 17. From what I observed-overcrowded classrooms, under-resourced teachers, and a lack of individual attention-I couldn’t trust that her welfare would be safeguarded. This concern I had in 2013, has since been supported by research. The Children’s Commissioner (2019) highlighted that many children are unsafe at school, with bullying and insufficient support being major concerns. Furthermore, the Department for Education's School Workforce in England report (2020) underscores the issues of teacher shortages and large class sizes.

2.3. S’s educational journey has been holistic and integrated, focusing on core academic subjects and life skills. She has been learning French and Gujarati since the age of two and now, at 11, is teaching herself Japanese and Korean. Beyond academics, she runs a small business, making and selling lip balms and sea salt scrubs, which has been supported by programmes like the Liliboo Inspire Programme and FEAST Cornwall. Her love for learning extends to weekly ballet and performing arts lessons (at our local community centre), French (with an online tutor), and ukulele lessons (with a musician in our sitting room). Importantly, she is a happy, kind, and curious young girl.

2.4. Education for S is an integrated process, where every activity, from reading articles over breakfast to exploring local woods or visiting museums, becomes an opportunity for learning. This organic approach to education nurtures curiosity and helps her engage meaningfully with the world around her. It is not a rigid, 6-hour school day, but a continuous, real-world education.

2.5 In 2020, we very sadly lost my husband, and our lives turned upside down. But it was home education that anchored my daughter during that incredibly difficult time, providing her with the stability and support she needed. This is exactly why she continues to thrive now, as the flexibility and personalised learning environment have allowed her to cope with life’s challenges while growing academically and emotionally.

3. Summary of Concerns

3.1. Excessive and Harmful Regulation:

3.1. 1) The CWSB’s requirement for home-educating families to register all supervised and unsupervised learning is impractical and would impose an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on my family. Home education is not bound by rigid timetables or fixed hours. It is a flexible, organic process that unfolds through everyday experiences-whether academic learning, gardening, or community classes. These regulations would waste our time and force us into a school-like structure that doesn’t suit our needs, undermining the very freedom and flexibility that makes home education effective.

3.1. 2) The Bill’s demands for excessive detail-tracking websites, resources, and home visits-violate our right to privacy and undermine our family’s autonomy. It opens the door to subjective judgment on what constitutes "appropriate" learning and environments, paving the way for potential abuse. The threat of fines or prison for non-compliance is disproportionate, especially with no evidence of harm. This creates unnecessary scrutiny and leaves families vulnerable to interference and harm without cause.

3.1. 3) The regulations would also unduly burden those who provide opportunities to home-educated children. S's ballet, performing arts, sports, music, and French tutors would be forced to comply with draconian registration. Many would likely stop providing for home-educated children, leaving families like mine isolated and depriving our children of vital learning and social opportunities. This would harm the wellbeing of the very children the bill claims to support. If safeguarding is the true concern, these measures would make children more vulnerable and isolated, rather than promoting community engagement that actively supports their welfare.

3.2. Undermining Parental Rights and Existing Laws:

3.2.1) Our decision to home-educate our daughter was made from the principle that we, as her parents, were the best people to ensure her well-being and education. The CWSB’s proposals undermine this fundamental right by imposing excessive State control. The Education Act 1996 guarantees parents the right to educate their children in a way that suits their unique needs, unless there is clear evidence of harm or neglect. The Bill disregards this principle, attempting to overstep the boundaries of family autonomy with no proof of a systemic issue in home education that justifies such interference.

3.2.2) The notion that this bill will safeguard children is misleading. Existing laws, such as the Children Act 1989, the Children and Families Act 2014, and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, already provide sufficient powers to protect children. However, these powers have not been effectively applied, as tragically highlighted by cases such as the death of Sarah Sharif. The focus should be on ensuring that existing laws are fully utilised to address real threats to children's welfare. Misallocating resources to regulate well-functioning home-educating families, rather than addressing the systemic issues within the state education and care systems, is a colossal waste. It will not protect children but instead risk harming those, like my child, who are thriving in home education.

3.2.2) The introduction of a Single Unique Identifier (SUI) would allow my child to be tracked across multiple agencies without parental consent, violating her right to privacy and undermining our family’s autonomy. As an underage child, her privacy must be protected, and these measures directly breach that right. This also disregards the principle of informed consent, as we are not given the choice to opt in. The lack of evidence that home-educating families are causing harm makes this surveillance system unjustifiable.

3.3. Unfounded Stigmatisation of Home-Educating Families

3.3.1) The Bill wrongly frames home-educating families as subpar, suspicious, and unsafe, despite clear evidence of success. Research (see point 2.2) shows home-educated children often excel academically, have better mental health, and develop greater independence. By labelling home education as needing regulation and surveillance, the Bill unfairly stigmatises families like ours who are providing the best opportunities for their children. This is not only harmful but slanderous, isolating children and undermining a proven educational model that fosters success and well-being.

4. Recommendations:

4.1 Reject the clauses 24-29 in CWSB related to home education. Home education is a positive and proactive choice that more families are embracing, offering a proven, flexible, and tailored approach that works precisely as it is - unregulated. Ongoing attempts since 2009 to impose unnecessary state oversight waste public money and time. Home-educating families pay taxes that support state schools while not using those resources. Instead of targeting families who are successfully meeting their children’s needs, policymakers should focus on addressing challenges within the state education system. Leave home-educating families to continue thriving and direct resources where they are truly needed.

4.2) Uphold and effectively apply existing laws rather than introduce unnecessary new regulations. Current legislation, such as the Education Act 1996, the Children Act 1989, the Children and Families Act 2014, and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, already provides robust safeguards for children’s welfare. The CWSB proposals overstep these established legal frameworks, undermining parental rights and family autonomy without evidence of a systemic issue in home education. Policymakers should ensure that existing laws are properly enforced to address genuine threats to children’s welfare.

4.3) Engage with stakeholders to better understand the impacts of these proposals. Consult widely with home-educating families, privacy advocates, and civil liberties organisations. By learning from the experiences and insights of those directly affected, policymakers can make more informed decisions and avoid unintended consequences. Gaining a deeper understanding of how home education works-especially its flexible, personalised approach-will help inform improvements to the state education system, rather than imposing unnecessary regulations on families who are already meeting their children’s needs effectively.

January 2025