Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Stella De Luca to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB104)

I am a home-educating parent of five years, with children ranging from 4 to 14 years old. I am deeply concerned about the proposed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bil. It is well known that schools, social services, and local authorities (LAs) are under immense pressure due to a lack of funding and resources. While I support the need for improvements within these systems, I believe there are critical flaws in this bill that must be addressed to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children.

For many families, school is not a safe or suitable environment, and as parents, we know our children best. The right to choose an appropriate education for our children must be upheld without fear of persecution. Below are the key issues I wish to raise:

Home Education Register

A new home education register is unnecessary. LAs already maintain a record of home-educated children when they are deregistered from school. The proposed register fails to address children missing from education entirely, doing nothing to protect those most at risk. Current legislation, such as Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996, already allows LAs to investigate concerns, issue School Attendance Orders (SAOs), and involve children’s services if safeguarding concerns arise with home educated children.

The proposed register also demands an excessive level of detail from home educators, which is both impractical and punitive. Home education is inherently flexible and does not follow rigid timetables or replicate a school setting. The register would unfairly penalise families who adopt diverse, effective educational approaches that do not fit traditional school models. 

Section 24

Section 24 introduces several concerning restrictions:

· Refusal to Deregister: LAs would have the power to deny deregistration in cases of ongoing child protection concerns or assessments, even if these are unrelated to the parents or home environment. This creates unnecessary barriers for families and risks unfairly targeting them based on inaccurate or misleading information.

· Special School Deregistration: LAs would also be allowed to deny deregistration from special schools based on what they determine to be the child’s best interests, even though they do not know the child as well as their parents.

· Section 24(8)(b): This could harm families in cases where parents are separated due to abuse, unfairly limiting one parent’s ability to act in their child’s best interests.

· Section 24(12): Automatically denying new deregistration requests within six months of a prior refusal is unreasonable. Family circumstances and children’s needs can change rapidly, and this clause prevents parents from responding to those changes.

Section 24 should be removed entirely. Current laws already allow LAs to act swiftly in cases where children are genuinely at risk. Additional restrictions only create unnecessary burdens for families.

Section 25

Section 25, which proposes a new home education register, should be scrapped. LAs already maintain records of home-educated children, and the register fails to address children missing education. Instead, it imposes unnecessary demands that will harm families and restrict educational freedoms.

Specific Concerns in Sections 436C–436P

· 436C: The detailed information required from home educators is excessive and unworkable, particularly for flexible education styles. It could discourage organisers of group activities, such as museum trips or Scouts, from accepting home-educated children due to the administrative burden.

· 436I: This section risks misuse, with LAs potentially forcing unnecessary home visits. These visits could harm children, particularly those with autism, for whom the home is a safe space. There is no mention of appropriate training for visiting officers or guarantees that visits would be conducted professionally.

· 436P: The increased penalties for SAOs would discourage families from challenging unfair decisions, even when they are providing a suitable education. This creates an imbalance of power, leaving families vulnerable to LA overreach.

Schedule 31A

The demands in this section require an unattainable level of detail from parents. Many families would struggle to meet these expectations, risking fines or even imprisonment for simply educating their children in a way that suits their needs.

Conclusion

The current systems already provide sufficient safeguards to protect children at risk and ensure educational suitability. This bill introduces unnecessary layers of complexity that will harm families, reduce educational freedom, and fail to address the core issues. I urge the committee to reconsider the bill and focus on improving the support and funding for existing services instead of introducing punitive measures against home-educating families.

January 2025