Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by an individual who wishes to remain anonymous to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB105)

I am submitting evidence as someone who has been a teacher for 18 years in the state sector, a parent, home educator (11 years and counting) and Special guardian. My evidence relates to the content about Home Education and the Children not in school register and to the proposed legislation about Kinship carers.

I request that my evidence be published anonymously due to being a kinship carer.

I would like to start by saying that the time scale on this bill is very short, given previous consultations and calls for evidence. This is a long and complex bill covering so many issues yet it feels as if it is being rushed through.

My concerns are as follows:

• The unique number for a child is similar in nature to the Named Person Scheme in Scotland which was deemed to be in breach of a child’s right to a private and family life. It mistakes bureaucracy for safe guarding and will create a mountain of data which will make it more difficult to find children at risk.

Home Education

• Moving who decides suitability from parents to the Local Authority. This is a shift away from families towards the State and puts children at risk by restricting parents’ ability to protect their children.

• Powers and resources lie with the local authority. Home Educating parents are just ordinary citizens and most do not have the resources to take on local authorities. Local Authorities can abuse this power. There are not enough safeguards in the Bill to protect ordinary families. This endangers children.

• Under the guise of safeguarding, children’s rights to say who comes into their home (private life) and their right to a family life could be ignored.

• The proposed register requires very detailed data. There have been issues in relation to local authorities having data leaks. If sensitive details such as children’s clubs and groups are leaked that places children at risk.

• The proposed register requires the details of parents. I cannot find any mention of Special Guardians, who only have overriding parental responsibility. The language needs to be "educating parent or guardian," otherwise there will be instances where a parent who is estranged or a birth parent who is no longer in a child’s life has details on the register when it is not necessary.

• A child at the age of 13 years has the right to say what happens to their data. The register has very high penalties for parents who do not comply with registration including imprisonment for up to 51 weeks. A parent, whose teenager refuses consent to pass on their data, as is their legal right, will face choosing between respecting their child’s wishes and facing criminal proceedings. It harms a child to have their parent imprisoned especially for such a long time.

• The requests for data reveal that the Department for Education is unaware or does not care that Home Education is very different from that which goes on in school. Good Home education is not the same as good practice in schools. This needs to be acknowledged. The existing system, where parents can send in a report needs to remain in place, as does our right to refuse State employs access to our home where there is no evidence of wrong doing.

Kinship Care

• The bill only speaks about Local Authorities publishing support available. It does not put any statutory duties on a Local Authority to provide a dedicated Kinship team, support workers, training and financial assistance.

• The Charity Kinship have four actions that are the basics that Kinship carers need. These are equalising financial allowances between Kinship carers and foster carers; equalising support and training between Kinship carers and foster carers; equalising parental leave between Kinship carers and adoptive parents; equalising support between Kinship children and those in care.

• The extending of the Virtual Schools to Kinship children is a good thing for those in schools, where kinship children’s needs are so poorly understood. However it should be made clear that this should be optional for Special Guardians who elect to Home Educate, especially where the education system has already failed a child. This is because Home Education is intertwined with family life and a worker from the Virtual Schools may not have the training or experience to offer any meaningful support in relation to Home Education.

There are several additional things that are really important to be included if this bill is to go forward. These are:

• Training EHE staff in different approaches in Home Education. This needs to be done by experienced Home Educators.

• Local Authorities should be required to consult experienced Home Educators and organisations when considering suitability.

• Having a robust and easily accessible complaints system, with the power to make local authorities pay considerable compensation when their officers have misused statutory powers or where they have infringed children’s rights.

• Giving Home educators the only thing they have consistently asked the Government for and that is a right to access exam centres without being over charged.

• Acceptance of Kinships’s four areas of equalisation and a Kinship carer team in every LA.

Given the short time scale, I wanted to keep my evidence concise. Home Educators work hard to provide quality education that fits their own children and develops their character and equips them for the world in which they are growing up. Many home educated children have already been failed by the education system. It is about time the government look at what is going wrong, rather than disapprove of actions parents take to protect their children. There is such richness in the Home educating community and this Bill places it at risk.

As a Special Guardian, I know what it is to spend every day picking up the pieces when a child is harmed. The powers to protect children already exist, they are just very badly executed in so many cases. The system itself harms the children it purports to help. A culture change in Children’s services, not a legal change needs to take place. Harming Home Education and making it more difficult, which is what this bill does, will not protect children. It is not neutral towards children who are growing up in safe home educating families. It will harm them when LAs enter homes, demand data, leak data by mistake, issue SAO where none is needed and threaten parents with criminal conviction.

January 2025