What it is, and its implications for parents.

The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. What it is, and its implications for all parents.

The proposed Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill has raised significant concerns within the home education community. Many of the provisions outlined in the Bill risk undermining parental rights, disrupting children’s education, and imposing unnecessary and invasive measures on families.

This article highlights key issues with the Bill, explaining how these changes could negatively impact home educators and their children. It also provides guidance on how you can raise your concerns with your local MP to help protect the right to home educate.

 

Deregistration

The proposed bill requires local authorities (LAs) to refuse deregistration from special schools if they decide it’s not in the child’s best interests. At first glance, this might appear reasonable, but it places significant trust in the LAs' judgement while excluding the voices of both parents and children. It also disregards any plans parents may have in place to meet their child’s needs.

The current system is already misused by some schools and LAs, and this wording opens the door for even greater abuse. It risks forcing children to remain on school rolls even when their needs aren’t being met, the environment isn’t safe, or when parents decide to home educate—a valid, proactive choice, not simply a last resort. This will disproportionately impact families who turn to home education to protect their children, effectively handing parental rights to the LA.

 

Fines and Prison

Failure to provide the required information for the proposed register could result in fines or even imprisonment. The level of information demanded is highly invasive, disregards most home education approaches, and fails to respect children’s right to privacy.

The register won’t just contain basic information like the names and addresses of parents and children. Instead, it demands far more, including the hours of education provided—an unrealistic metric for most home educators. Learning in home education often happens all day, every day, in informal settings: through conversations at the dinner table, late-night chats, walks in the woods, or baking with family.

Moreover, the register requires details of everyone involved in a child’s education. This is unworkable. Parents would have to submit frequent updates—potentially hundreds of pages each year—to account for changing providers, tutors, websites, and more. Groups and clubs, such as Scouts or home-ed swimming lessons, would also be required to provide information about children. Many organisations may refuse to work with home educators altogether due to the burden, robbing children of valuable opportunities.

The idea of tracking websites and tutors is equally absurd. Imagine listing every single site your child accesses or forcing tutors to face inquiries from the LA. This would deter tutors from working with home-educated children, increase costs, and jeopardise children’s privacy.

 

Compulsory Home Visits

Allowing the LA to ‘request’ home visits, with refusal used as evidence against families, is a serious overreach. A family’s home is their sanctuary, and no one should have the right to invade that space. While social services already have the power to act in genuine safeguarding cases, this proposal is unnecessary and ripe for misuse.

Badly trained or biased LA staff could show up unannounced, demand access, and use any resistance as leverage to force children back into school. Such visits risk creating distress for children—especially those with special educational needs (SEN)—and could make parents feel unsafe or judged in their own homes.

 

Data Security

The bill raises serious concerns about the security of personal data. Education data breaches are already all too common, and this bill increases the risk by expanding the scope of information collected.

 

Impact on Schools and the National Curriculum

The bill’s requirement for academies to follow the national curriculum removes their flexibility to tailor learning to children’s needs. For some families, this rigidity will make school an unsuitable option, leading to an increase in home education. It’s troubling that this sweeping change is being introduced without waiting for the outcomes of the curriculum and assessment review. This lack of foresight undermines confidence in the government’s approach.

 

Lack of Clarity and Oversight

The bill offers little explanation for its proposals, leaving much of the detail buried in secondary legislation that can be amended with minimal input. This creates a dangerous lack of transparency and opens the door to serious misuse. If LAs already struggle to understand existing guidance, how can they implement such a complex and invasive system?

 

A Call to Action

This bill does not protect children, address those missing education, or provide meaningful support to home educators. It’s an attempt to control and restrict home education, prioritising bureaucracy over children’s wellbeing.

We need to raise our voices. Share this information widely, post it in groups, and let’s make it clear: this bill is unacceptable. Together, we can push for sections to be revoked or rewritten. 

If you can reach out to your local MP, try to make your message personal. There’s no need to write a lengthy letter—simply bullet point your main concerns and expand on one or two issues that impact your family the most. Share why you chose to home educate and the positive difference it has made in your lives. Rest assured, your details will not be shared with the local authority, as MPs are bound by a strict code of conduct. Don’t forget to include your address in the email so your MP knows you are a constituent.

You can find your MP here

https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP

 

Here are some useful links relating to the bill:

Educational Freedom - What is the children's wellbeing and schools bill

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024 – The HE Byte

Education Otherwise

Children’s Wellbeing & Schools Bill – Ed Yourself

Home Education Action Group | Facebook

 

 

Here’s a list of the most worrying issues from the proposed Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, with explanation notes for each quoted line of the Bill:

 

Duty to Share Information

• The Bill requires any person who is considered relevant to safeguarding (that includes all education providers) to share information about children not just to safeguard them, but also ‘promoting the welfare’ in the person’s view.
  • Explanation: This clause is overly broad, allowing data sharing even in non-safeguarding cases. The term ‘promoting the welfare’ lacks a clear definition, which may lead to unjustified breaches of privacy.

 

Consistent Identifiers for Children

• This involves a track and trace system for all children.
  • Explanation: It raises serious privacy concerns, especially given the frequency of data breaches in education services. It also questions the need for a separate home education register.

 

Child Employment

• Gives the LA the right to require a child to have a medical examination if seeking a work permit.
  • Explanation: This undermines a child’s privacy and autonomy in deciding on medical matters.

 

Local Authority Consent for School Withdrawal

• Parents must obtain consent to remove certain children from school based on a Children Act s47 enquiry.
  • Explanation: Since 78% of s47 investigations do not result in child protection plans, this risks undermining family rights without just cause. For children already home educated, the LA should not decide as it undermines parent's and children’s rights. This provision improperly forces families into school against their wishes, violating their autonomy.

 

School Attendance Order (SAO) Pre-notice

• Requires LAs to serve formal notice to HE parents under a Children Act s47 enquiry before issuing a school attendance order.
  • Explanation: This unjustly forces many children into school despite no child protection plan, disrupting their education. It also risks being exploited by abusers to harm victims.

 

Refusal of Withdrawal Consent

• The LA must refuse consent if it believes school attendance is in the child’s best interest.
  • Explanation: This undermines parental rights, as local authorities may lack a nuanced understanding of individual children, potentially leading to biased refusals.

 

Six-month Consent Reapplication Ban

• Parents cannot reapply for consent within six months if refused.
  • Explanation: This delay can cause significant harm to children with special needs or mental health conditions. A proper appeals process is essential.

 

Home Education Register

• Home-educated children are required to be registered.
  • Explanation: Singling out home-educated children risks stigmatisation and privacy concerns.

 

Excessive Information Demands from Parents

• Parents must provide: names and addresses of all involved, education time spent with each parent, and details of any other providers.
  • Explanation: These requirements are intrusive, overly burdensome, and risk jeopardising the privacy of families and education providers.

 

Retrospective Data on Children in Need

• Parents must report past involvement with the Children Act 1989 s17 and LA actions taken.

  • Explanation: This discourages families from seeking voluntary support and imposes unnecessary long-term recording of sensitive details.

 

Open-ended Data Collection

• Registers may contain any information LAs consider appropriate.
  • Explanation: This gives LAs excessive powers, undermining family privacy and data rights.

 

Register Publication

• Publication must not identify children.
  • Explanation: Registers should not be published at all to protect children and families from potential risks.

 

Reporting Changes

• Parents must report every change (e.g., provider used) within 15 days.
  • Explanation: This is overly intrusive, breaches privacy, and creates excessive administrative burden.

 

Third-party Reporting Duties

• Third parties must report details of education provided to a child.
  • Explanation: This violates data rights of providers and relatives and may lead to services being withdrawn due to compliance risks.

 

Insufficient Support Provisions

• LAs are only required to provide advice and information as support.
  • Explanation: Access to examinations should also be mandated to ensure meaningful support for families.

 

Home Visits

• LAs may request home visits and use refusal as evidence of non-compliance.
  • Explanation: Families' right to home privacy is undermined, and consent may be coerced under threat.

 

Prosecution for School Attendance Orders

• LAs can prosecute repeatedly under the same school attendance order.
  • Explanation: Repeated prosecution without further enquiry is unfair and violates principles of justice.
• Parents can face imprisonment for non-compliance.
  • Explanation: This risks family rights and welfare, with no redress mechanisms in areas where LAs prosecute unfairly.