Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Jodie Coles to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB86)

Introduction

I am writing in my capacity as a very concerned citizen and as a parent who home educated my two children from 2012 until 2023. Both my children are autistic and school was not the best place for them. My daughter attended school from reception up to the end of Year 8 and my son attended from reception until the end of Year 3 before we decided to home educate. The decision proved to be well founded and both flourished both educationally and mentally away from the rigidity of the school setting.

I am still very active in the home educating community running a large support group helping parents source and access affordable educational resources, as well as putting them in touch with both local and national home educating groups so they have support in knowing their legal duties and rights as elective home educators.

In its current form I feel this bill will have detrimental consequences on the choice to home educate in the first instance and the way we currently provide a suitable education through home educating, and the relationship between local authorities and home educators will become more distrusting than it already is.

Executive Summary

• I do not believe local authorities should have the power to block the withdrawal of a child from school if they are under a section 47 enquiry

• I do not believe that a Children Not In School register should be implemented, or made a legal requirement

• I am alarmed about the extent of data collection, and the possibility for this sensitive data to be compromised

• I am concerned that a register will open up families to increased risks posed by contact with estranged partners, for data is required from both parents of a home educated child, regardless of whether they are involved in the child’s education

• I am concerned about the vast amounts of information expected to be reported within the outlined register requirements, and feel it is unrealistic for a home educating parent or guardian to reasonably adhere to such requirements

• I find the bill unclear in its definitions. It is not clear exactly how detailed information provided by parents or guardians has to be, or which education providers would apply to local authority requests for information on home educated children

• I 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 stand strongly against school attendance orders being given if home visits are refused. I 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

1.) 434A - Local authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

Where a child is subject to a child protection plan I would not argue the fact that consent from local authority is required to withdraw said child from school, but I certainly do not agree with Condition B (page 45, line 32)

Many enquiries under section 47 are triggered by unfounded or malicious concerns and do not go on to place children under child protection plans. Under this condition parents would have their rights taken away for no good reason. I myself had two malicious reports to Social Services simply because we were home educating; these only led to informal enquiries but it was a stressful and very unpleasant time, and horrible to think it was even considered that I had the potential to cause harm to my children when I only ever had their best interests at heart.

I fear that if families are in a situation where their children are not being provided with the support they need at school, particularly those with SEN, and are unable to attend and wish to deregister to electively home educate, the local authority could instigate an s47 enquiry in order to prevent deregistration if they decide school is the best place for the child.

A child may attend school with no problems, but can easily start experiencing issues such as bullying or finding their SEN needs are not being met. In these situations, a child’s anxieties escalate, often triggering mental health declines and cases of self harming. I worry that if such stressful situations do occur that an investigation by social services may be triggered, and under new legislation a parent or guardian may be prevented from removing their child from the very place that is causing them such harm. This would be through no fault of the parent or guardian, and would only act to negatively impact the wellbeing of the child.

I feel that subsection (4)(a) should be removed from the bill as it will erode parental rights in so many irrelevant cases and act to maintain a child in a school environment which is harming them for no good reason.

2.) 436B - Duty to register children not in school

I object to the formation of this register. It is being presented as a safeguarding measure to make sure all children are known and receiving a 'suitable' education. There are already robust measures in place ensuring children are known. From birth children are registered and involved in professional services. When a parent deregisters their child from school in order to home educate, the school has a duty to notify the local authority. The local authority then in due course makes contact with those families.

In its current form the register aims to collect far more data from home educating families than local authorities currently hold. This is very alarming given the amount of times there have been data breaches within local authorities (see link for reference: https://www.thinkdigitalpartners.com/news/2024/07/11/uk-councils-rack-up-more-than-5000-data-breaches-in-2023/ ).

3.) 436C - Content and maintenance of registers

I feel requesting the details of both parents could open up risks in those families where parents are estranged due to domestic abuse. Local authorities are well known for data breaches, as mentioned above, and I know many single parents who are very concerned and worried about having to name ex partners, or partners who actually have no input in home educating the child.

Requirements for the proposed home education register would require a ridiculous and unrealistic amount of information from parents or guardians. It is far too much to expect the number of hours learning happens, how many hours each person provides the education, any websites used, and any groups attended etc. to be reported in full, along with any other information the local authority considers appropriate! How are local authorities going to cope with this amount of information, and what are they going to do with it?

From my own experience, home educating by its very nature is so fluid and changes day by day according to each child's needs and interests. It is a much broader and varied educational choice than the prescribed education received in schools. In my capacity as a resource supporter for hundreds of home educating families I see first hand how resources are used and the frequency with which these shift and change. This is even more so with many SEN families, especially those educating children with pathological demand avoidance (PDA) profiles who are using so many different resources to find the best fit for their children.

Home education is not school at home, and educational opportunities and interactions happen at all times. How can you quantify and log every single conversation a parent and child have which is educational? Many families cover lots of their learning verbally so it is difficult for this to be reported. Are parents expected to report everyone they have spoken to with their children if the child has gained something educationally from it? Thinking back to when we were home educating, a trip to a local garden would provide such an opportunity, as we grew to know the head gardener and would often engage with him about plants and what his job entailed. If we visited nature reserves we often engaged with the wardens to learn about the habitat and the wildlife that lived there. All of these people would be considered as involved in our educational provision, but are experiences that are not really quantifiable.

It is not clear what is meant by a provider who offers education virtually. Are parents expected to report each time their child watches an educational YouTube video, for example? Many home educated children do utilise this as an educational platform, but are not personally educated by the content creator, so would these need to be included in reports? Aspects like this must be made clearer within the legislation of the bill.

Will parents and guardians be expected to report every single location that is used for home education community activities and events, and any museum or public space in which a child might learn? When we were home educating, groups of families would join together and hire a local hall to book educational sessions, including Sublime Science, History reenactments and Raptor Foundation experiences etc., with many families currently home educating still maintaining this type of group education.

Then there is the onus of including grandparents or family friends etc. who might play a role in educating home educated children if they have certain, valuable skill sets. These people could very much object to their data being added to a register, with the potential to be shared with anyone the local authority feels fit to do so. I foresee this causing a quandary for parents or guardians who rely on that extra support to educate their child to the best of their ability.

Having to report all of these extra elements in addition to the usual reporting already required at present, and notifying the local authority every time there is even the most minor of changes (as outlined in 436D - Provision of information to local authorities: parents), is going to have the opposite effect of providing a suitable education; parents will be stressed out, with their attention taken away from their children due to being swamped by extra admin and bureaucracy. It could also put parents off of using such a variety of resources to avoid extra hassle, therefore, further negatively impacting the quality of the educational provision currently provided. This section, and the amount of information required, needs to be drastically reconsidered to put forward more realistic terms.

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

Again, this will be detrimental to the quality of education home educating parents provide. Many education providers who are used may object to this burden of keeping records and having the duty to report details about any home educating children to local authorities. Many of these providers would not even have the information being asked of them. This would mean such providers may disengage with offering their services to home educating families to avoid the hassle; the threats of monetary penalties (as outlined in Schedule 31A) will only add to this disengagement.

The bill is not clear on who would be classed as an ‘out-of-school education provider’? As previously mentioned this could be a family friend with a certain skill set or grandparents who may take on some home education provision if parents are sick or work part time.

Are online resources classed as an education provider? Online programmes such as EdPlace or Century Tech do provide education, but do not offer real life tuition, so have no interaction with the families who benefit from their resources, and know very few details about them. This is the same case with online Zoom sessions which are popular amongst many home educating families. Would these providers come under the scrutiny of the bill if a child works through these online resources independently without the presence of a parent or guardian, despite the fact the providers hold little to no personal details about the home educated child, or how many hours in which the service has been used?

The bill is also vague in detail of what a "prescribed amount of time"

(page 52, line 24) actually is.

There needs to be a much clearer definition of all these points, and serious consideration about how these measures may discourage education providers from engaging with the home educating community, and the negative impact this will have on the quality of a child’s education.

5.) 436I - School attendance orders

I feel this whole section is very intrusive and could cause real harm to the families involved if subjected to these requests.

No parent wants strangers coming into their homes passing personal judgements; many home educating families are supporting children who are on the autistic spectrum, and such situations would be stressful. Imagine if a child chooses their bedroom as their learning space - how invasive would that feel? The children are likely to be questioned and interrogated to assess their capabilities, which will only add to their mental distress.

If someone's home is not immaculate and looking like a classroom is this going to be automatically deemed as an unsuitable learning environment?

There are many EHE officers who are not understanding of home education, especially of families who follow a more unstructured, child led approach. Some children might never write in a book etc., but would still be learning by doing practical things and engaging in conversations. There needs to be better knowledge of the diversity of educational methods within the home educating community so that a suitable education is judged fairly.

I feel this section - "If a request under subsection (2)(c) is refused by the person to whom it is made, the local authority 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’! However, I can see that many parents will see the need to decline requests of home visits, regardless of outcome, in order to protect their child’s wellbeing and mental health, for a home visit would prove to be too much for many, particularly those children with SEN.

If a child is made to return to school under a SAO whilst under investigation it could cause irreparable harm, especially if they have special educational needs and/or mental health issues.

Education is not a safeguarding concern; home educators are being singled out with this requirement. If this part of the bill is passed then all family homes should be inspected as schooled children spend more time at home than they do at school.

If there are safeguarding concerns, then Social Services already have the power to check on the home environment. This proposed section is absolutely not necessary, giving too much power to local authorities and is massively open to misuse and discrimination against a minority community. I feel that subsection (3), at least, should be removed entirely from the bill to prevent discrimination and to protect home educating families.

I am also deeply concerned that 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 opportunity for accountability.

Conclusion

It is very clear to me that this bill has been written with no understanding of home education and I feel it is treating families who choose to home educate as guilty until proven innocent. We are a minority group constantly coming under state scrutiny simply because we choose to educate at home.

The measures within the bill are not proportionate and unnecessarily infringe on privacy and family life. It is undermining parental responsibility and giving local authority almost unlimited power using the clauses within it.

Before this legislation proceeds any further I call for a consultation with home educators to address the impact the bill will have on our community as we are one of the major stakeholders.

January 2025