Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

 Written evidence submitted by Shelley Blakesley to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB22). 

To whom it may concern,

I am very concerned about the new Children’s Wellbeing Bill. As a home educator - who is also a qualified and experienced teacher- many of the proposed changes are going to prove incredibly detrimental to thousands of young people, especially those who are neurodiverse and require a different approach to learning in a manageable environment with expectations that take into account their needs, as is the case for my own children. This has the potential to cause severe mental health issues for a significant amount of young people who cannot manage a school environment and, as such, constitutes disability discrimination.

There is no need for an additional home education register as LAs already have one- indeed, I was contacted as soon as I deregistered my children . The proposed register does not include children missing in education, so will do nothing to protect these children. The LA can make enquiries about the education and serve a notice 437(1) and ultimately SAO if concerns about the education are known, they can also refer to children’s services (social workers) if they have safeguarding concerns. If children are currently lost or fall through cracks then that is a failure of professionals to use existing legislation. Indeed, in the widely publicised Sara Shariff case, the teachers had already reported bruising. She was no more safeguarded at school than when at home. This was a systemic failure- not one due to home education.

The proposed register requires an unattainable level of detail from home educators that it in effect bans styles of learning that are not fully timetabled ‘school’ at home. Many neurodivergent learners cannot access a school environment that is ill-devised and poorly equipped to deal with their needs. Expecting all online providers and EOTS settings to provide detailed information on each learner will make many withdraw their provision- denying neurodivergent learners who need a different type of learning environment a vital resource. This would be the worst possible outcome for these children and cause a significant rise in mental health problems.

The following points needs consideration:

Section 24 expects LAs to refuse consent to deregister if there is a child protection case, or assessment in process. This would be problematic for families who are on CP for issues not relating to their parenting or the home. It also expects LAs to refuse deregistration from special school if the LA determines it not to be in the best interests of the child. This could be misused by schools providing the LA with incorrect information. The LA does not know the child best, so this section needs rewording to protect all children and address each situation individually.

s24 8(b) could cause harm where the parents are separated due to abuse etc.

s24 12 automatically denies new deregistration requests within 6 months of previously being denied. This is dangerous due to children’s needs always changing and family circumstances changing. This should be removed.

Section 25 Registration - it is wholly unnecessary as LAs already keep lists of home educated children. And this register does nothing to identify children missing education.

436C part 1

The details required from home educators is excessive.

a) and b) is information the school already passes on to the LA on deregistration.

d) is not quantifiable in hours as home education is flexible

e) is absolutely not possible for the majority of home educators, and will mean many styles of home education will not be possible as they can not provide this level of detail. Part (iv) or e) will affect home educating individuals who arrange drop off sessions for children at an activity/event, they would probably stop organising valuable events.

Part 2

k) any other information should be written into the bill, not be added at a later stage in secondary legislation.

Part 3.

LAs should absolutely not be allowed to add in their own criteria. They already misuse their duty- this would cause chaos and massive overstepping, if a register must be in place then the criteria should be uniform across all LAs.

436D

1 b) does this mean both parents need to provide the info?

2 a) the LA should not be allowed the freedom to ask for the info whenever they want, this needs limiting

b) they can not realistically expect home educators to update the LA every time they use a new group, website, tutor, etc. this is unrealistic information

436E

1 a) and b)

plus 3 a) and b)

The required information from unspecified groups will lead to groups refusing to accept home educators, will swimming lessons, language group lessons organised by a parent, scouts, home ed group outings to museums etc be included? This is too vague and open to an unattainable amount of information. Not all groups know a child is home educated as it is not a criteria to be known in afterschool and weekend groups.

436 F

3 open to misuse

5 is open to misuse and harm to families. The register allows bias and opinion which could then follow the family to the new LA.

436 G

1 allows the LA to provide inaccurate information.

What measures will ensure the advice is accurate and suitable to the child? Will it include links to multiple home education support services?

2 Leaving support to the LA seeing fit to give will mean most LAs will offer nothing. And same concerns for 1 above

Schedule 31A

Whole section is reliant on the parent providing extensive information that many will not be able to provide, this will mean fines and prison (7) for wanting to educate their child in a way that suits the child but means being unable to provide the lengthy information this bill expects.

436H

A replacement for 437(1) notice to satisfy.

5 c) why are the LA to decide what is in the best interests of the child?

6 If the parent is unable to provide the ridiculous amount of information on the register, despite no concerns being raised about the education, is not appropriate.

436 I

2 a) and c) has the potential to be misused and misquoted to force home visits before SAO is even considered, this happens already.

What happens if a home visit could be harmful to the child, eg if the child is autistic. The home should be the child’s safe space.

What training will the visiting person have?

Can this be legal? Only a person with a warrant has right of entry to the home.

3 choosing to protect your child and their safe space will be used against families, too much trust in the LA making the right decision is given.

436k

An unnecessary addition to the existing 437(1) and SAO process, the complicated proposed processes with confuse LAs and home educators alike, the existing processes are more than adequate.

436P

8 VERY concerning as things stand many LAs serve SAOs for nefarious reasons, with evidence some use them to force compliance with ultra vires rules, currently if you are providing a suitable education but the LA refuses to accept that then you can go to court, and show a court the education is suitable. The risk is minimal, with the SAO being enforced and the parent fined as the worst case scenario.

This proposed section increases the penalty meaning fewer families will risk going to court even if the education is suitable! What is to stop LAs misusing this further?

I urge you to really consider the impact of these changes.

Kind regards,

Shelley Blakesley

January 2025.