Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Sarah Howett to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB 61)

I home educate my son and I’m writing to you regarding the proposed Children’s Wellbeing Bill and Home Education Register.

I would firstly like to point out that there is no need for a home education register at all as Local Authorities already have a register of children who have been deregistered from school. Once a child has been deregistered the LA then contacts the parents/carers to ascertain how the child will be educated from then on. You then annually provide information to the LA to show that your child is receiving an efficient, full-time and suitable education, which I have been doing since I started HE. The LA can serve a notice 437 (1) and SAO if there are concerns about the education being provided. They can also refer to children’s services if there are safeguarding concerns. The new register does not include children missing education, so will do nothing to protect those children and presumably these are the children the government are concerned about and wants to ensure are given an education and are protected. If children are currently falling off the radar then that is a failure of professionals to use existing legislation.

The new register would require an immense amount of detail from parents who home educate that in effect would prohibit styles of learning that don’t replicate the learning style of schools. Most home educators don’t follow a school style of learning as they find their child/ren learn better and more enjoyably with a flexible way of learning.

I would encourage you to scrap the register or edit the points below.

S24 8(b) this could cause harm where the parents are separated due to abuse.

S24 12 automatically denies new deregistration requests within 6 months of previously being denied. This is dangerous as children’s needs and family circumstances are always changing. This should be removed.

All of section 24 should be removed as current legislation allows LAs and SS to obtain emergency rulings to protect children they feel are at risk so these extra restrictions are not needed. It also expects local authorities to refuse deregistration from special schools if the LA thinks it’s not in the best interest of the child. This could be used by schools providing the LA with erroneous information. The parent/caregiver knows the child best not the LA, so this section needs rewording to protect all children and to look at each situation individually.

436C part 1

The details required from home educators is excessive.

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

d) Is not quantifiable in hours as home education is flexible. Learning happens all the time, anywhere.

e) Is not possible for most home educators and will mean most styles of home education won’t be possible as they can’t provide this level of detail. Part (iv) or e) will affect home educators who arrange drop off sessions for children at an activity or event, they would likely stop organising these important activities.

Part 2.

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

Part 3.

LAs should not be allowed to add in their own criteria. They are already known to misuse their duty; this would cause chaos and overstepping. If a register must be in place, then the criteria should be the same across all LA’s.

436D

1b) does this mean that both parents need to provide this information?

2a) the LA shouldn’t be allowed to ask for the information whenever they want, this needs limiting or bad LAs will do it far too often.

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

436 E

1a) and b)

Plus 3a) and b)

The required information from groups will lead to them refusing to accept home educators. Will home ed group outings, music lessons run by a parent, gymnastics lessons, scouts be included? This is all too vague and an unattainable amount of information. Not all groups are aware that a child is HE as it is not a criterion required in afterschool and weekend groups.

436 F

3 this is open to misuse

5 is open to misuse and harm to families who leave badly behaved LA areas. The register allows bias and opinion to follow a family to the new LA.

436 G

1 allows the LA to provide inaccurate information, as is often done now. Some outright lie while others hide their bias behind misquoted legalities under the guise of advice.

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

2 if you allow the LA to offer support when it sees fit it will mean most LAs will offer nothing. The same concerns apply to number 1 above.

Schedule 31A

This entire section is reliant on the parent providing insane amounts of information that most people won’t be able to provide. This will mean fines and prison (7) for wanting to educate their child in a way that suits their particular child’s learning style/needs all because of the lengthy information that this bill demands.

436 H

5 c) why are the LA to decide what is in the best interests of the child when they don’t know them?

6 If the parent is unable to provide the huge amount of information required by the register, despite no concerns being raised about the education, it is not appropriate.

436I

2 a) and c) will be misused and misquoted to force home visits before an SAO is even considered which happens already.

A home visit could be harmful to a child, e.g. if the child is autistic, as my son is. The home should be a safe space for them.

What training and experience will this person have?

Is this legal? Only a person with a warrant has the right of entry to your 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. Most have nothing to hide but with hundreds of families treated badly by LA’s each week, you have everything to protect as you are already aware of LA misuse of power.

436 k

The existing processes area more than adequate. It’s an unnecessary addition to the existing 437 (1) and SAO process. The complicated proposed processes will confuse LA’s and home educators.

436 P

8 This is very concerning, as things stand many LA’s serve SAO’s for nefarious reasons, with evidence that some use them to force compliance with ultra vires rules. Currently if you are providing a suitable education but the LA doesn’t accept that then you can go to court and show the court the education is suitable. The worst-case scenario is the parent is fined. This proposed section increases the penalty meaning fewer families will risk going to court even when the education is suitable! What will stop the LA’s misusing this further?

I urge you to consider the points that I have highlighted to ensure that home education continues to be freely accessible to children in this country.

Yours sincerely, Sarah Howat.

January 2025.