Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

 Written evidence submitted by Charlotte Decaille to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB226). 

I am writing to share my thoughts and concerns about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill . In particular, the Bill conflates home education with safeguarding risks, raising significant concerns within the home education community. Its provisions threaten to impose invasive and unnecessary measures on families, disrupt children’s education, and undermine parental rights. As it stands, the Bill is flawed and unfit for purpose, risking irreparable harm to over 90,000 home-educated children in England. Home education is not a last resort but a deliberate, thoughtful choice for many families. As data shows more parents are choosing to home-educate their children and the number has continued to rise.

Below, I outline my key concerns and the reasons why this legislation must be reconsidered. I strongly urge the committee to scrutinise the Government on this Bill and advocate for the necessary revisions to ensure it achieves its aims without unintended harm.

Conflating home-education and Safeguarding Risk

The Bill wrongly conflates home education with safeguarding risks, despite no evidence to justify such a connection. This exposes a critical flaw in the Bill’s reasoning: most at-risk children are already known to social services, regardless of their educational setting. The Government has failed to provide evidence that home-educated children face a greater risk of harm than their schooled peers.

The Secretary of State claims this Bill will ensure "children are not invisible," b ut home-educated children are not invisible the vast majority are known to Local Authorities , the Bill ignores the real issue: existing safeguarding services failing to act on known risks. When properly applied, current legislation is more than sufficient to protect at-risk children. The problem lies in enforcement, not a lack of legal powers. Rather than imposing unnecessary regulation, the Government should focus on ensuring existing safeguarding powers are used effectively.   Local Authorities are already stretched thin, struggling to fulfil their existing duties, which will only further overwhelm an underfunded system, diverting resources from children genuinely in need of intervention while subjecting responsible families to excessive scrutiny.

The narrative around home education is almost always focused on the negative. The tragic death of Sara Sharif was the result of systemic failures by social services and the judiciary. It had no connection to home education. While it is clear that home education should never have been an option in Sara’s case, the fact that she was removed from the school roll during the final weeks of her life did not contribute to her death , as Sara was murdered during the school holidays-a time when she would have been at home regardless of her educational status.

Instead of using this tragic case to justify stricter regulations on home educators, the focus should be on fixing the failures of social services to protect vulnerable children. Home education should not be scapegoated for shortcomings in the safeguarding system; efforts should prioritise strengthening these services rather than unfairly targeting responsible families.

While safeguarding and educational standards are undeniably important this Bill fails to address its stated aims. Instead, it targets home educators, undermines parental rights, and creates unnecessary barriers for families who are already doing their best to provide a suitable and loving environment for their children. True reform should focus on improving the use of existing legislation, properly funding social services, and addressing systemic failures-not punishing law-abiding parents and their children.

Threat to Parental Rights and Educational Freedom

Home education is not a last resort but a deliberate and thoughtful choice for many families. Data shows that more parents are choosing to home-educate , with numbers continuing to rise. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill appears to be a backdoor attempt to undermine parental rights and push children into mainstream schooling, regardless of their best interests. Expecting Local Authorities to determine what is best for a child effectively grants them parental rights-a responsibility they are neither equipped nor qualified to handle.

Parental rights in education have long been recognised, affirming that parents-not the state-are best placed to determine what is suitable for their child. The proposed Bill challenges this principle by implying that the state is better positioned to make these decisions. This is a fundamental shift that undermines the long-standing legal framework, which places the primary responsibility for a child’s education on parents, except in cases where harm or neglect is evident.

The Education Act 1996, Section 7 , explicitly upholds this right, stating:

"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable -  

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and

(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."

This provision affirms that home education is a legitimate and equal alternative to school, placing responsibility for a child’s education firmly with parents. However, the proposed Bill contradicts this principle by imposing excessive oversight, subjective standards, and bureaucratic hurdles that restrict parental choice.

By shifting decision-making power from parents to the state, the Bill risks eroding parental rights and replacing families’ ability to make informed educational choices with a one-size-fits-all system dictated by Local Authorities. Such measures would not only harm responsible home-educating families but also set a dangerous precedent for state intervention in private family decisions. It is imperative to defend the foundational principles of the Education Act 1996 , ensuring that parental choice remains protected, and that the state’s role is limited to supporting families, not overriding them.  

Overreach and Invasion of Privacy

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill proposes that if a request under subsection (2)(c) is refused by the person to whom it is made, the Local Authory must consider that to be a relevant factor in deciding whether the child's parent has failed to satisfy the Local Authority as mentioned in subsection (1)(b)( i ) or (ii)" - has a particularly threatening undertone. Parents will be coerced into accepting home visits in fear their child will be automatically sent to school, regardless of the parent's wishes or in the child's 'best interests' . While social services already have the power to intervene in genuine safeguarding cases, this additional measure is both unnecessary and open to misuse. There are no consequences for Local Authorities who misrepresent the law or abuse their powers.

A family’s home is their private space, and no one should have the right to invade that space without clear, evidence-based safeguarding concerns. No guidance has been given as to whether these would be announced or unannounced visits. These proposed changes erode trust between families and Local Authorities and an additional layer of regulation serves only to intimidate responsible home-educating families .

The Bill expands oversight beyond education by allowing Local Authorities to assess ‘suitable’ the home environment itself-including a child’s bedroom if learning occurs there. This level of intrusion is not necessary, open to abuse and lacks clear definitions ‘ guidelines . This proposal is not in response to any safeguarding concerns, it is for all home educators, who just want to get on with the important task of educating their children.

Threats to Children’s Opportunities

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill places unnecessary administrative burdens on groups and organisations that home-educated children attend, such as Scouts, swimming lessons, and language classes. Many of these groups may refuse to work with home-educated children rather than navigate the additional bureaucracy, depriving them of valuable learning and social opportunities. For example:

· Scouts and similar extracurricular activities – Home-educated children often engage in activities that, while educational, are not classified as formal schooling for children in mainstream education. Under this Bill, groups like Scouts would be required to report details of home-educated children attending their sessions, creating unnecessary barriers.

· Tutors and specialist instructors – Tutors who support home-educated children may be deterred from working with them due to concerns about being questioned by Local Authorities. This could increase costs, limit access to high-quality education, and erode the trust essential for an effective learning environment.

This creates an unfair divide and could lead many organisations to withdraw access for home-educated children altogether-achieving the opposite of the Bill’s intended purpose by reducing educational and social opportunities. I expect that many groups will either close entirely or end access to home-educated children, as it is not their responsibility to ensure the suitability of a child’s education. This unnecessary bureaucratic burden threatens to isolate home-educated children and limit their ability to learn in diverse, enriching environments.

Impact on Home Educators

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill imposes unrealistic and overly bureaucratic demands on home-educating families, disregarding the diverse and flexible nature of home education. Many families follow child-led or autonomous learning approaches, which do not conform to rigid timetables, curricula, or standardised teaching methods. The expectation to provide exhaustive documentation, including learning hours, methods, resources, and group activities, is not only impractical but also discriminatory against these educational approaches.

Section 436C of the Bill mandates an excessive level of detail, such as:

· The number of hours of education provided.

· Websites, books, and all resources used .

· Names of tutors, groups attended, and " any other information" the Local Authority deems necessary.

These requirements fail to reflect how home education works. Learning is not confined to set hours or specific locations-it happens organically through conversations, exploration, and hands-on activities. Parents would spend more time compiling reports than actually educating their children.

Moreover, Section 436E requires external tutors, groups, and activity providers to submit information about home-educated children. This could discourage tutors from working with home-educated children for fear of being questioned by Local Authorities . Some may refuse to take on home-educated students or increase their fees, further limiting access to valuable.

The Bill’s requirements wrongly assume home education mirrors traditional schooling. In reality, learning happens through life experiences, such as:

· Learning to cook or bake , which is life skills but allows English, sciences and maths.

· Walks in the woods , exploring nature and learning about ecosystems.

· Activities like Scouts, swimming lessons, and group language classes , which develop social skills and practical knowledge.

Under this Bill, parents would need to log every website used or every educational moment, creating an unworkable administrative burden. Requiring families to report every person involved in a child’s education-including tutors, mentors, family members, and group leaders-is both invasive and impractical.

School Attendance Orders (SAOs)

Granting Local Authorities excessive power to issue School Attendance Orders (SAOs), forcing children into school without clear evidence of harm, a child protection plan, or a right to appeal. This undermines parental rights, unnecessarily disrupts a child’s education , leaves families vulnerable to unjust coercion and criminalises responsible parents for exercising their legal right to home-educate .

Local Authorities are known to serve SAOs for nefarious reasons, with evidence some use them to force compliance with their own made-up rules. Currently, if a parent is providing a suitable education but the Local Authority refuses to accept, then that parent 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. The Local Authorities will misuse this further damaging trust between home-educating families and Local Authorities .

Home educators do not currently have any effective legal recourse in order to complain if Local Authorities have overstepped their boundaries. This must be put in place if more consequential legislation is put through that has the potential to negatively impact home-educating families. There needs to be an opportunity for accountability.

For Elective Home Education (EHE) officers, there are no minimum qualifications or training required , here are 3 examples of qualifications needed in 3 different county councils, yet they have the same power is disrupt a child’s education.

· East Sussex County Council requires a Level 3 qualification ("A-Level or equivalent") or "equivalent level experience."  

· Walsall County Council, by contrast, demands substantial current teaching experience in a school or educational setting and Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), which requires a minimum Level 6 qualification (Undergraduate Degree or equivalent).

· Oxfordshire County Council does not require any formal qualification, only "relevant experience".  

This inconsistency creates a postcode lottery, where the assessment of home education depends not on clear, universal criteria but on the qualifications and personal views of individual officers. This is particularly troubling given the subjective nature of the term "suitable education." Without clear, evidence-based benchmarks, interpretations of suitability can vary wildly from one Local Authority to another or even from one officer to the next. Such subjectivity opens the door to bias, misunderstanding, and the imposition of school-based standards on home education, which fundamentally operates differently.

The use of financial penalties or other punitive measures should be reserved for the most serious cases, where education is found to fall significantly below an acceptable standard and there has been failures to improve or to engage with support offered by the Local Authority. Before resorting to such measures, the focus should be on providing workable remedies that ensure every child has access to the education they are entitled to under the law.

The Secretary of State’s for Education Statement and Contradictions

 

The Secretary of State for Education has stated:

 

    "We are not in any way seeking to interfere with the rights of parents to home-educate their children."

 

While this assurance is welcome, it is contradicted by the vague and burdensome requirements outlined in the Bill, which fundamentally interfere with the ability of parents to home-educate effectively. For example:

· The Bill fails to define what constitutes a "suitable education," leaving this open to subjective interpretation by Local Authorities.

· Failure to define " any other information the Local Authority considers appropriate " - is problematic because it grants Local Authorities vague, unchecked, and overly broad powers to demand additional information from home-educating families without clear parameters or justification.

· By requiring extensive details such as timetables, resources, and hours of education, the Bill implicitly Favors a school-like model of education. This disregards the diversity of home education methods, such as child-led or autonomous learning, which are equally valid and often better suited to the needs of the child.

 

Graham Stuart MP has rightly pointed out that:

 

    "The changes in the Bill directly contradict Section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which affirms a parent’s legal duty to ensure that their children ‘receive efficient full-time education…either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.’"

 

The Bill prioritises state oversight over parental judgment despite no evidence that home-educated children are at greater risk of harm or educational neglect. I agree that a register could be helpful in differentiating the various types of education that children are receiving, whether through mainstream schools, alternative provisions, or home education. Such a system could provide valuable clarity and ensure that all children are accounted for, particularly those who are entirely out of education. Identifying and addressing the needs of children who may otherwise fall through the cracks is essential to safeguarding their welfare and ensuring they have access to appropriate opportunities for learning and development.

Lack of Oversight

The lack of a regulatory body for Elective Home Education and Local Authorities creates an imbalance of power, leaving families vulnerable to subjective judgments and inconsistent decisions. Local Authorities operate without external oversight to ensure their actions are fair, lawful and informed, and many EHE officers lack the training to assess home education effectively. Families also have no formal appeals process for School Attendance Orders (SAOs), denying them a fair way to challenge unreasonable or biased decisions. Regulatory oversight is essential to ensure accountability, fairness, and respect for home education as a lawful choice, preventing overreach and protecting families.

No Meaningful Support for Home Educators

The Bill offers little meaningful support to home-educating families. Its vague, non-compulsory duty for Local Authorities to provide advice leaves support entirely at their discretion, with no guarantees it will meet families’ diverse needs. While introducing compulsory registers for children not in school, the Bill fails to require Local Authorities to offer tangible resources or funding. Most EHE advisors lack training in alternative education, leaving families to rely on home education networks for genuine support. The Bill focuses more on imposing rigid requirements than respecting the flexibility vital to home education, pushing a one-size-fits-all schooling model that fails to benefit families.

Data Privacy Risks

 

The Bill raises serious concerns about data security and the potential misuse of personal information and poses serious security risks, as data breaches in the education sector are already alarmingly common. The bill offers no clear safeguards for this data, leaving families vulnerable to breaches of privacy. Local Authorities are already known to mishandle or lose sensitive data, and expanding the scope of information collected-such as children’s locations, activities, and personal details-only increases the risk of breaches.

Conclusion

This Bill is a hammer to crack a nut when a nutcracker is already on the table. While I appreciate the importance of addressing children's missing education, this cannot come at the expense of innocent families who are providing an excellent education at home. The failure to use existing powers effectively is a professional shortcoming, not a legislative gap.

As parents, we are entrusted with the sacred responsibility of raising our children and ensuring their well-being . This Bill threatens to strip us of that responsibility.

Much of the detail in the bill is left to secondary legislation, which can be amended with minimal input or oversight. This creates a dangerous lack of transparency and increases the risk of misuse. Local Authorities already struggle to interpret existing guidance consistently; adding further complexity will only exacerbate these issues.  

This Bill demonstrates a lack of understanding of home education, treating families as guilty until proven innocent and subjecting them to disproportionate state scrutiny. The proposed measures unnecessarily infringe on privacy and family life, undermining parental responsibility and granting excessive powers to Local Authorities. These changes will erode trust in the government and Local Authorities while complicating parents’ ability to provide a suitable education for their children. Importantly, the powers necessary to protect and support home-educated children already exist.

Proper consultation with the home-educating community and experts in fields such as children’s mental health, educational law, and home education must occur before the next draft of the Bill is published. Organisations like Education Otherwise should be consulted to ensure the rights and concerns of home-educating families are fully addressed.

As it stands, this poorly constructed Bill filled with vague subjective terms such as ‘suitable education’ and ‘ any other information the Local Authority considers appropriate ’ risks harming more children than it helps and is discriminatory toward home-educating. It contradicts its stated aim of supporting these families, instead imposing undue restrictions and fostering mistrust. To prevent misuse and misinterpretation, the Bill must be revised with greater input from those it directly impacts.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns. I hope you will stand with the many families who are providing their children with a rich, varied, and suitable education through home education.

February 2025.