Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Poppy Coles to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB85)

Introduction

I am putting forth this evidence from the perspective and experience of a young adult who was formerly home educated from the age of 13, and who now runs a small business helping the next generation of home educated children access educational resources. As a neurodivergent person, I long suffered at school with crippling anxiety and isolation which negatively affected my mental wellbeing. Following my deregistration my world opened up, making connections with other home educating families which last to this day, and broadening the diversity and quality of my learning experience. I passed several exams via self study, and had the freedom to focus on my interests too. I am passionate about protecting this opportunity for others like me who will never thrive in a school environment.

Executive summary

• I am concerned about the implementation of a Children Not In School register and do not believe it should be made a legal requirement

• I am worried about the extensive amounts of information expected within the outlined register requirements, and fear it is unrealistic for a home educating parent or guardian to reasonably adhere to such requirements

• I am deeply concerned about the extent of data collection, and the increased possibility for this sensitive data to be shared with third parties without parental consent

• I am extremely worried about the determination of what categorises a suitable education, and how this will affect the home educating community. There is such a diversity of educational methodology within the home educating community that I am concerned this will not be correctly interpreted or understood by local authorities

• I am very concerned and stand strongly against the addition of home visits, as this acts to threaten family privacy and poses particular concern in regards to SEN families within the home educating community who would suffer significant mental distress under this measure

• I do not believe school attendance orders should be given if home visits are refused, and I strongly believe that serious alteration to this aspect of the bill needs to be carried out to avoid potential discrimination towards home educating families and their alternative educational provision

Submission

Clause 25 - Registration

1.) 436B - Duty to register children not in school

I do not believe a register of Children Not In School should be made a legal requirement, or will have any effect in further safeguarding children. Children in a school setting are known to authorities, but there are still many cases of abuse and other safeguarding concerns. There is no evidence that home educated children are at more risk than a schooled child (see study here: https://www.educationotherwise.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Home-Education-and-Child-Abuse-How-Media-Rhetoric-Drives-the-Myth-2.pdf). Even the NSPCC states that "Home-educating parents or carers are not more likely than others to abuse or neglect their children" in their 2014 ‘Home Education: learning from case reviews’ study. The unnecessary pressure that will be placed on home educating parents or guardians will be unjust and far outway any benefits a register would provide, if any. The only effect it will have is to negatively impact a home educated child’s educational quality, as parents or guardians will be more wary of using extra resources or tutelage due to the extra information that will be required to be reported to local authorities.

2.) 436C - Content and maintenance of registers

The information required in the Children Not In School register as presently outlined is far too much and would be entirely unrealistic. Of particular concern is the need to inform of "the amount of time that the child spends receiving education" (page 49, line 20) and the vast amount of information required if a child "receives education from a person other than their parent"(page 49, line 22). The government and those drawing up this bill clearly have no experience of home education, for they would understand how each day, or even hour, can vary substantially, with many different resources and tutelage being utilised to provide a diverse, varied education. How would a parent or guardian be expected to report every single little change to a child’s daily routine? It would become impossible for them to give any time to their children, for they would be spending all their time on admin for the register, therefore negatively impacting a home educated child’s education.

There is also too much ambiguity in the guidelines currently being put forward, highlighted most particularly by the claim that a "register under section 436B may also contain any other information

the local authority considers appropriate" (page 50, line 42). I fear this could allow local authorities and other authority bodies to step out of line, endangering the privacy and safety of home educating families, or any family whose children receive alternative educational provision. The sharing of data involved in maintaining and policing a Children Not In School register is alarming, particularly when I am aware that there have been many cases of data breaches by local authorities (see here for reference: https://www.thinkdigitalpartners.com/news/2024/07/11/uk-councils-rack-up-more-than-5000-data-breaches-in-2023/), including those I am in contact with within the home educating community. These data breaches have been a safeguarding concern, often involving estranged, abusive parents and putting children in question at risk of harm. How can we be certain such data breaches would not happen on a much larger scale when implementing a register? For this reason I stand strongly against such measures. I feel it would negatively impact the lives of home educating families, and rather than aid in ensuring children are receiving a suitable education, would act to inhibit parents or guardians from providing this due to increased pressure and regulations, and the fear of their data protection and the safety of their families.

3.) 436D - Provision of information to local authorities: parents

As mentioned above in point 2, home education is constantly evolving, with many changes in educational provision day-to-day. How would a parent or guardian possibly be able to report every single detail of daily change to the local authority, and ensure they’d done so within the prescribed 15 day period? I fear many would fail to do so, not out of neglect to the register, but simply because they don’t realistically have enough time to constantly report so many changes to their local authority. If a register is put into place there needs to be substantial revision of the depth of information required (as outlined in 436C(1)(d) and 436D(2)(b)) to greatly minimise the amount of detail a parent or guardian needs to disclose to local authorities to ensure timescales are achievable.

4.) 436E - Provision of information to local authorities: education providers

I fear that many resource providers, tutors etc. may withdraw support for home educated children as a result of a register’s implementation, as the need to provide so much information about those children may seem too daunting and time consuming to bother with the hassle, and it is particularly concerning that education providers will be subject to monetary penalties (outlined in Schedule 31A) if they fail to provide relevant information - information which may not, in reality, be available to them.

As in section 436C, there is again far too much ambiguity within section 436E, with little information to indicate exactly who would be classified as an education provider of out-of-school education. Home educating families utilise such a wide range of educational provision, from education websites, to YouTube videos and in-person learning sessions. Would the use of all these be classified as education providers in cases where a parent is not directly present and involved? If so, how would an online provider who has little interaction with their customers be able to provide personal details about their home educated users? There needs to be much clearer outlining within the bill to ensure all in question are aware of their duties in regards to this. There also needs to be a clearer definition of what defines a "prescribed amount of time" (page 52, line 24).

Again, I see that a register that requires such information from education providers would act only to negatively impact the quality of education available to home educated children.

5.) 436F - Use of information in the register

Data protection is a major concern in regards to this section too. It’s disconcerting that local authorities and the Secretary of State can share any personal information about home educated children and their families to third parties if they see fit. Many safeguarding concerns or reports are proven to be unfounded, particularly in cases where malicious intent has been involved, and judgement of educational provision is extremely subjective. I can foresee potential for error if these additional powers are granted to authorities. If a safeguarding concern is wrongly identified, or an education provision incorrectly deemed inadequate, unnecessary data will be shared, breaching personal data and family safety. Home educating families will feel very uncomfortable knowing their data is open to such misuse. I feel this should be seriously considered to address the potential harm these measures could cause, with much more stringent protection outlined to ensure data is not shared without reason, and that every effort is made to protect our personal details if a register is put in place.

Clause 26 - School attendance orders

1.) 436I - School attendance orders

This section of the bill presents the highest concern for myself and other home educating families. I fear there is much margin for error and the very real possibility for decisions to be made that will wrongly place vulnerable children back into a school system which had previously caused them harm. I worry that the suitability of education will be judged only against a standardised, school curriculum education, rather than acknowledging or understanding the many forms of educational methodologies seen within the home educating community. No single educational experience is the same, for those parents or guardians who home educate do so by crafting a personalised education to suit their own child’s unique needs and abilities. As a result, many home educated children learn without producing much written work or evidence, but learn plenty in their own, distinctive way. They develop into articulate, intelligent individuals with a wide knowledge base, but their learning style, however, cannot be judged against a standard curriculum, achievement based system. This must be taken into account to ensure no children are ordered to attend school simply due to a local authority’s lack of understanding of their educational style. Far better training and understanding needs to be encouraged amongst local authorities and government bodies before any adaptations to current laws are put through.

In almost all cases, a parent or guardian is the very best person to judge a child’s needs, so I find it abhorrent that parental rights are being diminished so greatly by this bill, putting these decisions into the hands of a local authority who know little to nothing of a child’s genuine needs and emotional support. Why should all parents be put under such scrutiny due to the actions of a tiny proportion of individuals who do not have the best interests of their child at heart? I strongly feel that alterations to make these clauses less severe and intrusive must happen, so as not to undermine parental and children’s rights.

I feel it is impractical and misjudged to expect to assess and "consider all of the settings where the child is being educated" (page 59, line 33), for home educated children learn at all times in all manner of different settings, from the supermarket, to museums and community groups etc.

The inclusion to "allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives" (page 59, line 38) is very worrying, threatening to disregard a family’s right to a private life and cause significant mental distress, particularly to those home educating family units which include SEN individuals. Home is a safe, personal space, and there seems to be little consideration of the negative impact this will have on children and parents alike. Home visits seem a step too far, and will offer no more evidence regarding educational provision than a parent can provide in a standard local authority report. Much education is carried out outside of the home, so the home environment holds little significance. The parents of schooled children would not be expected to accept home visits to assess the environment in which their child completes homework and extracurricular activities, so it seems a biased and unbalanced step which unfairly targets a minority community.

I am also concerned that there will be judgement cast upon families living in temporary accommodation or poor housing due to financial strains, with local authorities classing this as another negative count towards a family’s case. A person's home environment does not reflect who they are or their capabilities in home educating their child, and in these harsh, financially trying times an increasing number of families find themselves in positions they would rather not be in, including poor housing situations. This stands as another point against the implementation of home visits, as I fear it would encourage unfair discrimination based on social and financial circumstances.

I know that many families will have little choice but to refuse requested home visits for their children’s wellbeing and mental health. I do not believe that this should then lead to the potential of a school attendance order. I strongly believe that subsection 3 (page 59, lines 42 & 43 to page 60, lines 1 & 2) should be removed from the bill entirely, to avoid discrimination against vulnerable individuals and to protect home educating families, particularly those where SEN is involved, from overly harsh measures which look set to harm children rather than protect their best interests.

Whilst other aspects of the bill could be altered for greater fairness and more reasonable expectations of home educators, I see no option in which the home visit aspect could ever be fair, or morally right.

Conclusion

In conclusion I feel it would be unwise to place such powers within the hands of local authorities. Local authorities and government bodies need far better training and understanding of the diverse nature of home education before any adaptations to current laws are passed. Proper consultation with the home educating community and experts in the field must happen before the next draft of the bill is published to ensure the rights and concerns of home educating families are fully addressed and considered. The bill in its current form has a strong possibility to negatively affect the wellbeing and future of many home educated children, which is counterintuitive with the bill’s supposed aims of helping the home educating community.

January 2025