Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Emily-Rose Gray to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB97)

My name is Mrs Emily-Rose Gray from Royston, Hertfordshire and I am writing to you today with my views/feedback on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. As a home educator to a SEND child, the outcome of this bill is incredibly important to me because of the effects that passing it will have on the HE community, which will be negative and potentially dangerous.

Firstly, there is no requirement for a Home Education register, as LAs have an existing register for families who Electively Home Educate (EHE). The proposed register does not include children missing education, thus not protecting those children. 

Children that are deregistered from school are already known to the LA and are listed on register for this purpose. The LA has the capacity to make enquiries about the education (usually on a yearly basis, where we are to provide a progress report to ensure that the education being given is acceptable).

They are also legally able to serve a notice 437(1) and SAO. If concerns about the child's education are known, they can also refer to children’s services/social workers, if they have safeguarding concerns. If there are children that are currently lost or have fallen through the cracks of the system, that is the failure of professionals using existing legislation correctly. The suggested register requires an unachievable level of data from home educators, that will essentially eradicate styles of learning that are not fully timetabled school at home. This is problematic for many reasons, but the most prominent being that the flexibility of HE allows us to tailor our children's education to their skill set, interests, cognitive/physical abilities and their learning styles; which is particularly pertinent to parents of SEND children, such as myself.

I will now go on to give feedback about specific sections of the Bill in detail:

Section 24

This expects LAs to refuse consent to deregister if there is a current child protection case or assessment. This would be an issue for families who are on CP for issues unrelated to their parenting/home.  It also expects LAs to refuse deregistration from SEND schools, if the LA determines it is not in the best interests of the child. This could be misused by schools providing the LA with incorrect information. LAs do not know each individual child best, so this section needs rewording to address each situation individually.  

s24 8(b)  - This would cause harm where the parents are separated due to abuse etc. I personally know another parent in this situation and they are terrified that their abuser will find them and their child (this is not the reason that they are EHE). 

s24 12  - Automatically denying new deregistration requests within 6 months of previous denial should be removed and is dangerous due to children’s needs constantly developing and family circumstances changing.  

Personally, I feel that section 24 should be removed completely. Extra restrictions are not required, as the existing legislation allows LAs and SS to access emergency rulings to protect children they deem to be at risk. The failure of those services is not the fault of the HE community. We should not be penalised for their misgivings and scapegoated to cover up what is fundamentally a huge and recurring failure of our government(s).

Section 25  

Ideally a register will be scrapped, it is wholly unnecessary as LAs already have a register of home educated children. The proposed register does nothing to identify children missing education. 

436C

Part 1

The details required from home educators is excessive and unachievable. I would also question how providing this information would fit in with GDPR regulations? What happens if the individual(s) do not consent to sharing their data?

a)  and  b)  is information the school already passes on to the LA during the deregistration process. 

d)  hours spent educating are not quantifiable, as HE is fliexible , often including weekends, bank holidays and not restricted to school hours.

e)  is entirely impossible for the majority of home educators. It will mean many styles of home education will not be viable, as they cannot provide such a level of detail. Part (iv) or e) will affect HE parents who use drop off sessions at an activity/club and they would probably stop organising valuable events, as it is not their responsibility.

Part 2  

k)  any additional information should be written into the bill, not amended in a secondary legislation. 

Part 3
LAs should be prevented from adding their own criteria. They already misuse their duty, leading to gross overstepping of their remit. If a register must be in place, then the criteria should be homogenous across all LAs. 

436D

1 b) Does information from both parents need to be provided?

2 a)  The LA should not be allowed the opportunity to ask for the information at will. This needs to be finite or the bad LAs will misuse it.

b)  Unrealistic expectation - the amount of resources used everyday would make this unachievable.

436E

1 a) and b) / 3 a) and b)

This is too vague and open to an unattainable amount of information. The required information from unspecified groups will lead to groups refusing to accept home educators. Which groups would be included - just Home Ed groups or activities such as Scouts or Swim clubs, too? Not all after school/weekend groups know a child is EHE as it is not a required criteria to be known.

436 F

3  Open to misuse and misinterpretation.

5  Open to misuse and cause harm to families leaving areas with ill-behaved LAs. The register allows bias, which could then follow the family to their new county/LA.

436 G

1 Grants the LA the opportunity to provide inaccurate information, as is a present behaviour. Some blatantly lie & others hide their bias under misquoted legalities and present it as advice. There is evidence of them behaving maliciously if a family has declined the 'advice' due to its unsuitability. How will it be ensured the advice is accurate and applicable to the child? 

2  Letting LAs deem if support is required will mean that most LAs will offer nothing. This could also be used maliciously.

Schedule 31A

This entire section relies on the parent providing an alarmingly extensive amount of information, that many will not be able to provide. This results in fines and prison (7) for wanting to educate their child in a way that suits the child and would detract enormously from the time that would be spent actually teaching the child.

436H

A replacement for 437(1) notice to satisfy. 

5 c)  Why should the LA get to decide what is in the best interests of the child? They do not know the child. The majority are not properly trained in Home Education or SEND and are underqualified to make this decision.

6  Education deemed unsuitable if the parent(s) are unable to provide the extortionate amount of information, despite if there are no concerns being raised about the education or safeguarding.

436 I

2 a)  and c) will be misused to enforce home visits before SAO is even considered - an existing issue.  

Not considering the implications of what a home/privacy invasion means for Autistic & Neurodivergent families. Our homes are our safe spaces away from a world that is not built for us and refuses to accommodate us willingly.  What training will the visitor have to ensure the safety (mental & physical) of the family?

Only a court issued warrant gives the right of entry to a home - is this even legal?

3  Protecting your child/their safe space will be used against families. Far too much trust in the LA to make the correct decision is being offered. HE Families have nothing to hide, but with 100’s of the community subject to poor treatment from LAs, we have to protect everything we have.

436k

An unrequired addition to the existing 437(1) and SAO process. The complicated processes proposed will confuse LAs and home educators alike, the existing procedures are more than sufficient. 

436P

8 Incredibly concerning. Many LAs serve SAOs for underhand reasons, with evidence that they can be used to force compliance. As it stands, if the LA refuses to accept that you are providing a suitable education, you can show evidence to the contrary in court. The worst outcome is the SAO being enforced and a fine being issued. 

What will prevent LAs misusing this further? This proposed section increases the penalty, meaning fewer families will take the risk of going to court, even if the education is suitable. 

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. If you have any questions, please get in touch.

January 2025