Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by a person who wishes to remain anonymous to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB106)

I am writing to give evidence of my concerns of the proposed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill which is currently at the Committee stage. I am sympathetic of the overall objective of the Bill, when prioritising the safeguarding and wellbeing of all children and young people. However, I am concerned with the wording related to ‘Independent Educational Institutions’ clause 30 which could have devastating consequences.

My Background

· I am a parent of a 11-year boy who has complex needs including Autism with a demand avoidant profile, ADHD, sleep disorder and eating disorder.

· My son attended a mainstream school until the age of 9. Over the 4 years he attended mainstream school he experienced trauma and significant anxiety due the environment and culture of a mainstream school setting.

· After struggling for 4 years he reached Autistic burnout and severe mental health crisis and withdrew completely from the world. He was not able to connect with his family, eat, sleep and not able to leave the house and function. He has been recovering for 2 years and still on a recovery journey.

· My son is not alone there are hundreds of children suffering just like mine suffering trauma due to being in inappropriate settings.

· At aged 10 he gained an EHCP and Education Other than At School (EOTAS) package funded by the LA and he is now starting to be able function and live his life again and enjoy childhood. He cannot attend any school Specialist or Mainstream. The impact on his mental health after trying is evidence of this.

· His EOTAS package is bespoke and flexible and relies on smaller independent educational institutions such as self-directed learning communities and tutoring via an Alternative Provision.

Concerns regarding the Bill

Ref Clause 30

· Small independent learning communities, by design, are not conventional schools. They offer more flexible, tailored learning experiences that usually do not follow the National Curriculum or rigid timetables. These innovative learning provisions have emerged to address unmet needs within the mainstream and specialist education system, particularly for children who require a different approach to learning such as my son who requires a self-directed approach to learning. They play a vital role in delivering suitable education ‘otherwise than at school’, often succeeding where conventional methods have not.

· It is very worrying to me that the definition of ‘full-time’ will be defined by regulation. It’s important that the definitions of ‘full-time’, ‘all’, ‘majority’ and ‘part-time’ are added into the Bill so that learning communities like my son’s, which currently operate on a part-time basis, can understand how they will be affected. If the Secretary of State for Education were to decide that the hours of operation of these many provisions were in fact ‘full-time’ as a registered 'Independent Educational Institution' they may not be able to continue running, as the business management side of things would become unsustainable. Also imposing stringent regulations that force settings like these to conform to conventional school models could diminish their ability to provide personalised and effective education. They would no longer be offering an alternative to mainstream schools or specialist, which our children so desperately need.

· The proposed Bill may inadvertently force these young people back into conventional schools that previously failed to meet their needs, causing more harm to these children, exacerbating existing challenges with attendance, leading to a financial waste to the government when the placement will inevitable fail and adding further pressure to the school system and LA SEND teams.

· These smaller independent learning communities offer a more cost-effective provision than only using independent specialist schools which are significantly more expensive for the government.

· In our county of Hampshire there is a significant shortfall in the number of special school places and many children are already without provision. This Bill would exacerbate this situation. The number of EHCPs in Hampshire is rising significantly so this situation is expected to worsen.

In light of the concerns I have raised above, I urge the committee to consider the following questions during discussions of the Bill:

1. In what ways will the unique characteristics of innovative independent settings, be acknowledged and preserved within the proposed registration framework, ensuring they are not compelled to operate as conventional schools?

2. Please call for the Government to clarify in the Bill how it is defining 'full-time', 'all', 'majority', and 'part-time' education. It is important for these timings to be communicated now (as opposed to being decided later in the regulations), as changing the definitions may well put many small providers out of business. It will also dramatically increase the burden on inspectors.

3. What safeguards will be implemented to ensure that the registration process does not impose undue burdens on small independent education providers, potentially limiting the diversity of educational options available to Local Authorities trying to fulfil their legal duty to deliver provision stated on the rising number of EHCP’s?

4. How will the Government support and recognise the contributions of small education provisions that have effectively addressed gaps in the mainstream education system, particularly for children with special educational including mental health needs or those who have been traumatised by conventional school environments?

January 2025