Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Rachel Evans to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB 55)

Please accept this written evidence submitted by me (Rachel Evans ) as a home educator and parent carer of two autistic (variant Pathological Demand Avoidence - PDA) children.

I am writing to express extreme concern that whilst this bill is well intentioned it is written in such as way as to be likely extremely detrimental to the education, well being and health of many home educated children, including my own.

I will outline the following:

1. Introduction to us, why and how we home educate

2. Highlight sections of the Bill that are the most concerning, namely

a. Concerns that LA will be given powers to determined what is best for a given child

b. Concerns over the content of the proposed registers and practical implications of its workability

c. Concerns over data security and data breaches given the extensive and sensitive information to be held on the proposed registers

d. Concerns over the power given to LA to request information

e. Concerns about the support LAs will offer

3. Way Forward

1. Introduction to us

I have been home educating both my autistic boys for over 9 years. My youngest is diagnosed autistic PDA and my eldest has complex SEN including partial deafness in both ears, he is diagnosed ADHD and autistic PDA. For both boys, the PDA aspect creates huge barriers to accessing and participating in schooling (and thus formal structured learning/education). PDA is defined as an anxiety driven need to avoid the demands of everyday life and where the harder you insist the more the resistance (to the point of violent behaviour).

My eldest attended school for 3 years, and without doubt these were the most distressing and traumatising years of his life to date. School staff have limited training in different forms of SEN, limited understanding, experience and flexibility within the school environment to meet such complex and high needs. Despite having a diagnosis, his school interpreted his non-compliance and very disruptive behaviour as a parenting issue. For 3 years we battled with the school to get recognition of his needs, to have an Educational Psychologist evaluation completed (despite requests from his diagnosing Community Paediatrician they refused to do one, eventually we had to pay £1500 to have one done privately) and for them to apply for an EHCP (which they finally very gladly did AFTER we had the private Educational Psychologist report). It took over 60 weeks to finalise the EHCP, which to our horror and dismay did not provide any additional support than what was already provided. Despite school teaching staff and external support staff privately telling us they believed he should be in a SEN school, the school board inexplicably reported to the LA that they could meet his needs. He was deemed "mainstream appropriate" by the LA and the door to specialist schooling was closed. By this point it was clear that the demands of school and the curriculum were completely beyond his capacity to manage. He was very disruptive, and I was literally dragging him to school screaming on a regular basis because I was told I had to do this to improve his behaviour. He was so anxious he was barely eating or sleeping. In desperation I requested EOTAS (education other than at school), which was flatly denied by the LA as they had deemed him "mainstream appropriate". By this point I had researched home education as an option and came to the decision that this was our best option to safeguard his physical and mental health/wellbeing, as well as providing the best and most flexible environment to deliver full time education suitable to his age, aptitude, ability and SEN (as per my duties under Section 7 of The Education Act 1996). We have never looked back.

Due to the flexibility under the current law and guidelines governing home education, I can provide education that is suitable to his SEN and he is thriving. I have reported yearly to the EHE team at the LA and they have always praised my provision. My provision looks nothing like school at home, it cannot, because it would not meet his needs. The proposed changes in this bill (whilst well intentioned) will effectively prevent me from providing what I do now and only formalised, structured school at home will satisfy the requirements. This will be a total disaster for children like mine. There is no suitable provision for them in mainstream schooling, there are few specialist settings who can manage PDA and getting access to those places is becoming difficult to the point of impossible, and increasingly so in this period of SEN spending reduction. I am fearful for the wellbeing and future of my children if the bill goes through in its current format.

2. There are many areas of concern in the bill, but I will highlight 5 ones of particular concern below.

a. Local Authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

Section 434A (6) (a) – the local authority will be given power to determine what is in the child’s best interests. Whilst I totally agree that we need to protect vulnerable children from being deregistered to be harmed and/or abused. We should be extremely cautious about handing decisions about a child’s best interests exclusively over to local authorities. It is especially worrying that local authorities will be given this power without an independent body to oversee and hold them accountable. Many LA staff, educators, politicians, prominent figures e.g. Children’s Commissioner, believe that it is the best interests of ALL children that they should be in school. In an ideal world this would be true, but sadly we live in the real world and it is NOT remotely true, my own situation is proof of that (and we are certainly not alone). In many cases local authority officials do not have the training, depth of knowledge about a specific child and their SEN or home education in order to make this decision. There is also often a conflict between what is meant by "best interests" i.e. academic progress and outcomes/grades is often seen as paramount and more important whereas mental, physical and emotional health are overlooked.

b. Content and maintenance of the registers

Section 436C (1) (d) – assumes that education/learning only occurs as a result of direct instruction from a parent. Whilst this is one way learning occurs it is absolutely not the only way. Learning happens in conversation, watching programmes, reading material online, reading books, visiting people/places, through lived experience of actually doing something etc. Indeed, for most home educators we use all these rich sources of learning and education to provide a suitable education that meets our child’s particular needs. A parent may or may not be present at the time any of these occur. E.g. a child may watch a history documentary about WW2 whilst a parent is doing something with another sibling. Under the current wording this would erroneously not be included as time receiving education from a parent, yet clearly the child will have learned a huge amount.

Simply recording number of hours a child spends receiving education from a parent in order to assess suitability of education would hugely under represent the hours spent learning. If this is used to measure "full time" suitable provision it would be in error. If only formalised structured parent lead teaching was the only part of the provision that "counts" this would reduce and restrict home education to "school at home" making it an impoverished, poorer educational offer. It would also mean children like mine e.g. PDA would be left with no educational options at all to meet their complex SEN needs.

Section 436C (1) (e) (i-iv) – again this assumes that education and learning from someone other than a parent must also be formal and structured, which is again missing a huge part of the learning and education experience that makes home education rich. E.g. we recently visited London Zoo as my son has a passion for animals and conservation. We spoke at length with a number of zoo keepers about the animals, conservation, career paths etc. With the current wording of the bill I would be liable for a fine or prison term if I did not record with the LA the names and addresses of every keeper to which we spoke. They were not his parent and they undoubtedly contributed to his education therefore are in scope of this clause. Home educated children are regularly out in the community and their learning happens over a myriad of interactions with the people they encounter. As the bill stands, the amount of data I would have to submit to the LA in order to comply (and not be fined or imprisoned) is enormous and wholly impractical both for the LA and for the parent. It would effectively mean I would need to limit education to formal structured learning from a textbook or website at home. This would NOT meet my children’s SEN needs, would hugely diminish and limit their education and therefore negatively impact their education and wellbeing, the very antithesis to what this bill seeks to promote.

Section 436C (2) (k) – allows the Secretary of State to amend the requirements of the register on a whim without any parliamentary scrutiny. Any requirements of a register must be outlined in the primary legislation.

Section 436C (3) – even worse than the above, the bill allows local authorities complete carte blanche to request ANY information about a child without any oversight at all. Failure to comply could result in fines or court action. This is wholly unacceptable! There needs to be a national template set out in primary legislation.

c. Data security concerns

Section 436C (5) – whilst the bill provides restriction of publication of the data held on the child a very real concern remains about data security. The proposed registers will contain an absolutely huge amount of extremely detailed and sensitive data about our children. Accidental release of data is well known and experienced by home educators already with the registers LAs currently hold on home educated children. In cases of domestic abuse any accidental leaks to the abusive parent could pose an enormous risk to these vulnerable children. In addition, cyber attacks and breaches are also of great concern with such detailed and sensitive information being held. Only two days ago (the 16th January 2025) the BBC reported that Gateshead Council was subject to a cyber attack and personal data was stolen for an unknown number of residents, imagine if this was personal data of home educated children!

d. Power given to local authorise to request information

Section 436D (2) (a,b) – gives local authorities the power to request all this information at any time and at any interval. In addition, it requires parents to update any of the information held on the register or else face punishment of fine or court action. Whilst it sounds reasonable it does not work in the reality of home education. Even if we just consider formal structured learning a child might trial any number of tutors over a number of weeks before a suitable match is found. Every single one would need to be reported in order to comply. When we include groups, activities, trips, websites etc in order to comply parents would be realistically updating the local authority register with numerous entries every single week. If we add informal learning into this remit it becomes completely and utterly unworkable for both local authorities and parents alike.

e. Support

Section 436G (1) – specifies a parent can request support but the local authority provides it only if they consider it fit. With no budget to do this and the very well documented fact that local authorities are overspent and in financial trouble this amounts to zero support in reality. Local authorities have a legal duty to provide support for children with an ECHP but any parent in this position will confirm that, in reality, getting the support for which they are legally entitled is a battle increasingly frequently settled in Tribunal. The support I would truly welcome is equal and fair access to exams, but this is never ever offered, which itself potentially severely limits the academic outcomes of many home educated children.

3. Way Forward

I do not know of a single home educator that does not champion the wellbeing and safety of home educated children as paramount. This bill is well intentioned, but was written without an understanding of how home education works and how it can be completely different to school and still be a way children can learn and thrive. The local authorities already have the power to assess suitability of education and escalate to SAO if they deem it is required, they have the power to refer to children’s services, any responsible adult in fact has this power. Whether they use this power and whether children’s services have the resources to effectively protect children is the key to eliminating the simply appalling cases like that of Sara Shariff.

This bill as it stands will actually be detrimental to the wellbeing and education of so many home educated children. I have no real objection to a register. In fact, most children are on local authority registers already as it is a requirement when a child is deregistered from school. The problem is that the wording of this bill assumes home education is simply school at home, which it emphatically is not, and the depth and breadth of what is being requested and held is unworkable. It will reduce home education to a one-dimensional experience rather than the rich, multifaceted, immersive, real world, dynamic, flexible learning experience that it is. This is a strength of home educate as it stands, not its weakness. In an ideal world the needs of all children would be met in school, but we live in the real world and the brutal reality is that so often the needs of SEN children cannot be met in school. Please do not allow this bill to progress in its current wording, the impact will be catastrophic for so many children including mine.

January 2025.