Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill - it's not just a home-ed register. (title edited by MNHQ at request of OP)

[rainbowsnack]

I'm putting it here because the call for evidence closes soon. The reason I'm sharing is because the only thing being talked about is the CNIS register. It's actually a lot more than that and it's going to disproportionately affect children with SEN who are inherently more like to a) be on a CPP due to their needs and b) less likely to have a provision suitable to them in school and children who are home educated are frequently maliciously reported to social services by schools upon deregistration, especially if the school have failed their child and twice as likely to be reported by the general public, simply because they don't go to school.

Some of what they're suggesting are already required by law, so I'm not sure why they've put them in! I've bolded them. This will be multiple posts.

It falls under;

Part 2: Children not in school

24 - 29.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0151/240151.pdf

Children not in school

24 Local authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

After section 434 of the Education Act 1996 insert—
“Local authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

434A Local authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

(1) A parent of a relevant child must obtain the consent of the relevant local authority to withdraw the child from school if the parent intends—

(a) that the child should cease to attend the school at which the child is a registered pupil, and
(b) to withdraw the child from school for the purpose of causing the child to receive education otherwise than at school.

(2) A child is a “relevant child” for the purposes of this section if—
(a) the child is of compulsory school age,
(b) the child is a registered pupil at a school in England, and
(c) condition A or condition B is met in respect of the child.

(3) Condition A is that the child became a registered pupil under arrangements made by a local authority in England at—
(a) a special school within the meaning of section 337(1), or
(b) an independent school within the meaning of section 463 which is specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs.

(4) Condition B is that a local authority in England is—
(a) conducting enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (duty to investigate) in respect of the child, or
(b) taking action under section 47(8) of that Act to safeguard or promote the child's welfare, in a case where the enquiries mentioned in paragraph (a) have led the local authority to conclude that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer,
significant harm (within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10) of that Act).

(5) Where the proprietor of a school is notified by a parent of a child who is a registered pupil at the school that the parent intends to withdraw the child from school for the purpose of causing the child to receive education otherwise than at school, the proprietor must notify—
(a) the local authority responsible for the area in which the school is located, and
(b) the local authority responsible for the child, if different from the local authority mentioned in paragraph (a).

(6) If a parent of a relevant child applies to the relevant local authority for consent to withdraw the child from school for the purpose of causing the child to receive education otherwise than at school, the authority—
(a) must decide without undue delay whether to grant consent, and
(b) must refuse consent if the local authority considers—
(i) that it would be in the child's best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school, or
(ii) that no suitable arrangements have been made for the education of the child otherwise than at school, but otherwise must grant consent.

(7) An application mentioned in subsection (6) may also be made by the proprietor of a school at which the relevant child is a registered pupil, on behalf of the child’s parent, and with the consent of the parent.

(8) The relevant local authority must serve notice of the decision under subsection (6) on—
(a) the parent who made the application, or on whose behalf the application was made,
(b) any other parent of the child, where contact details of that parent are known, unless exceptional circumstances apply, and
(c) the proprietor of a school at which the relevant child is a registered pupil.

(9) Regulations under section 434—
(a) must provide that, where consent of the relevant local authority is required under subsection (1) in respect of a relevant child, the proprietor of a school must not allow the deletion from the school’s register of the name of that child unless the proprietor receives notice that the relevant local authority has granted
consent under this section in respect of that child, and
(b) may make provision to require the proprietor of a school to arrange to take, or not to take, any other steps specified in the regulations in relation to the registration of a registered pupil at the school where a relevant local authority has granted or refused consent under subsection (6).

(10) If a parent is aggrieved by a decision of the relevant local authority to grant consent under subsection (6)—
(a) the parent may refer the question to the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Secretary of State may—
(i) uphold the decision of the local authority, or
(ii) refer the question back to the local authority to determine.

(11) If a parent is aggrieved by a decision of the relevant local authority to refuse consent under subsection (6)—
(a) the parent may refer the question to the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Secretary of State may—
(i) give such direction determining the question as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, or
(ii) refer the question back to the local authority to determine.

(12) If a subsequent application is made in relation to a relevant child in respect of whom the relevant local authority has previously refused consent under subsection (6), the authority is only required to make a new decision under subsection (6)(a) if a period of 6 months has elapsed since the date of the previous application.

(13) In this section, a “relevant local authority”, in relation to a relevant child, means—
(a) where the child is a relevant child as a result of condition A (but not condition B) being met in respect of the child, the local authority that made the arrangements mentioned in subsection (3);
(b) where the child is a relevant child as a result of condition B (but not condition A) being met in respect of the child, the local authority conducting enquiries or taking action as mentioned in subsection (4);
(c) where the child is a relevant child as a result of conditions A and B being met in respect of the child, the local authority conducting enquiries or taking action as mentioned in subsection (4).”

The bill is too long, I agree. I mostly shared it like this so there's an easy to find copy as it gets lost in the actual document. The education secretary is currently refusing to meet with the home ed community to discuss it.

The home ed community are honestly trying to avoid templates because the government tends to ignore them. There's a couple of Facebook groups though. However they have strict criteria for joining I believe.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/stophl11

https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1PCUE3VpHg/

To make sure no home educated child 'slip through the cracks.' You do realise that most are home educated precisely because they have slipped through the cracks and the people who will monitor the home educators are precisely the people who allowed the child to 'slip through the cracks'? So having failed the child, in what way are they qualified to deem what may of may not be a suitable education?

Can you imagine the ordeal a parent and child might have been through before taking the step to withdraw their child from school and potentially giving up their own career? And then to have to fawn and impress the people who ignored their plight and years of torment not to mention wangled their way out of their statutory duty.

You clearly don't understand the issues.

What about welfare checks when children are in school, being bullied, given work ill suited to their aptitude in environments unsuited to their needs, prematurely exposed to sexualised language and behaviour. I think education departments have quite enough to do getting their own house in order before they come chapping at the door of home educators.

Honestly, this is worrying. Kids should equal opportunities, that includes equal access to EHE if its what's needed. This bill treats the state as a parent and gives them the power to override parental decisions if they don't agree with them, in what world is that ok? We're sleepwalking into having our own and our children's right removed.

Children with an EHCP in mainstream won’t need permission unless this is a recent possible addition. Where did you read this?

It's being proposed as part of the Children's wellbeing and safeguarding bill, which this thread is discussing. The committee approved it this afternoon. The call for evidence ends soon.

The checks are to prevent another situation where a child like the tragic case of Sara Sharif was off roll. I think it's highly unlikely they will be interfering in the day-to-day education. It's to stop people evading a social work investigation for abuse.
I'm very sorry that your child has had a poor experience with school based education but they are trying to stop children being abused. It really shouldn't affect the rights of regular families to home educate.

Do you have a link please, there have been no previous references to this in this particular bill although it was mentioned previously.

My error. It's children in special schools (which mine is) I think I already had to ask the LA anyway?

I swear I saw it was children with an ehcp mainstream too.

It seems even less logical really as some children with ehcps in mainstream have more needs than some in special.

Thanks I was worried I had missed something. It is something mentioned about a year ago by the Tories so that’s where you have heard it. I don’t agree with permission for SEN schools either though.

@rainbowsnack im a home educator and I applaud you trying to raise awareness of this bill but in my experience mumsnet is not the place. You will get a large percentage of people saying on MN “if you’ve nothing to hide, what’s the problem (without actually understanding the problem)?” And “it’s to stop children like Sara Sharif ‘falling through the cracks’ “
What most don’t realise (as the government and media have publicly used her sad demise to push through extra powers) that she didn’t ’fall through the cracks’ she was highly visible to the courts, social services & the education system. She was known from birth and was ‘home educated’ for 5 minutes. Yet we’re being scapegoated for their utter incompetence and failings.
You’re better off using your energy to write to your MP and submit evidence to the bill committee than posting on here. MN is very anti-home ed generally.

I find it awful that Sarah Sharif keeps being brought up in this debate. The authorities didn't check on her for her home ed or for anything. All this could have been in place it wouldn't have made a difference to her life. She was abused for years in plain sight she was failed at every turn from birth but we will blame her death on her father's withdrawal to home educated her.
The Government need to get their own house in order.
May that little girl be sleeping peacefully and without fear now.

The current law is actually more than adequate, the problem is funding and not enough staff. I feel all this bill is going to do is increase the workload with even more false referrals.

The school reported concerns both before and after deregistration and she was killed over the summer holidays. This bill wouldn't have saved her just like the current laws didn't.

I'm well aware, I've shared to raise awareness, nothing more, not everyone who home eds is on fb, I'm doing exactly that my MP so far hasn't responded though. Done a lot of my own response this week and still working on it, I'll be submitting it ASAP

Also what many people don’t realise is this bill has been sat in a drawer in Whitehall since last time Labour were in power. They have been waiting for the right time to dust it off. Sara Shairf’s death has been just the opportunity they have been waiting for. Shame on them for using that poor girls tragic story to justify their power grab attempts.

Shame on you Labour and especially you Bridget Phillipson.

Yep, ever since the Badman Review in '09 that accused ALL home educators of being child abusers, and people wonder why we get defensive!

I know, I wasn’t having a go, you’re right. I’m just so exhausted from fighting this for my own family and my own community. Mumsnet is generally so anti home ed it can feel like pissing in the wind.

I don't see how they can make it work any way Kids are leaving the failing system in their droves and there aren't the resources to enforce this.
Schools are full of failing.. Courts are overrunning prisons are overflowing. Police are massively under funded. Where are the funds to educate all these kids that have left the system and parents are funding themselves because councils are going bankrupt and failing to fund EHCPs and pupil transport. Teachers are leaving the profession children's mental health services are failing families. But let's put the boot in to the parents who are trying to do the best they can for their children.

Agreed. What they’re proposing in practice is unrealistic. I’m on the national FB group for teachers leaving the profession (I’m an ex teacher as well as HE parent) and also the national home ed FB groups and if the government could see the sheer numbers of teachers and pupils leaving the system on a daily basis, I think even they would be shocked. Yet, are they doing anything it? No…. Just busy passing pointless bills and ignoring the real issues.

I know you weren't don't worry. Sending virtual hugs. It's been a rough few years for home edders. I'm an oldie in EHE terms lol!

Tbh I'm exhausted too. The constant almost yearly consultations are frustrating, precisely because it takes away time from home edding our kids, but who else is gonna fight for them?

Edit; still can't fucking type though, I'm glad I can edit on here 😂

Sara Sharif was at school for years and her plight was ignored. She was going to school covered in bruises. This was institutional failure. To blame home education is a nonsense, she was no safer enrolled at school than she was out of it.

Are home educated children more at risk of sexual, physical and emotional harm that children in school? I doubt it, but it costs nothing to scapegoat home ed families. Each case where a home educated child had come to harm and you'll see institutional failure, time after time there were concerns, social work involvement, umpteen chances to intervene. It's no different to school children who are harmed at home or on school premises.

Safeguarding is great but it needs to apply across the board. Thousands of schoolchildren come to harm at school, many live in fear of going yet there's a deafening silence on safeguarding.

A lot of this is not new and a significant chunk is about clarifying local authorities powers, something people have been asking for governments to do for decades.

Yeah, governments are going to overreach, and I can see pushing back on specific points. Some of this seems more aimed at rooting out unregistered schools than home educators & combining them together creates makes the bill clunky.

Overall, I'm not seeing this as an attack. I'm seeing it as the pendulum swinging the other way to match many other countries - we currently have pretty much no oversight or regulations, barring a few exceptions like children withdrawn from special education schools - and there has been efforts by home educators and others for a while for change.

Are home educated children more at risk of sexual, physical and emotional harm that children in school? I doubt it

Correct - statistically, home education on its own is not a safeguarding risk. When home education starts while there are already known safeguarding concerns (as seen in pretty much all the tragic cases), it can be a sign that the abuse that was already happening is escalating, which is why some have argued that pulling to home educate when those are present should lead to some form of automatic response to speed up investigations, but that's not yet in place.

Unfortunately home edders have been under a sustained attack for 6 years +, this is just the latest, and worst so far.

I was home educating back during the Badman reviews I remember that shite. I remember certain leaders of certain home ed groups at the time made false articles of the horrors it would being - including intimate checks on our kids - to try to rally home educators against it.

It worked. That's a big part of why certain parts of some home education communities have been crying "attack" or 'the laws we have now is enough' to every consultation or suggestion of changing law or practice for so long, even when others have been pointing out the flaws that go beyond that the lack of resources.

We're sleepwalking into having our own and our children's right removed.

Every legal 'right' requires the state to enforce it and responsibilities that come with them. The right of fair trial requires a lot of the state's involvement and citizen involvement. Not everyone agrees with that.

The state is the one that framed education as a right every child has. Not every parent agrees with that. Many local authorities have basically washed their hands of kids who are home educated. People have been pushing for something to better clarify the responsibilities for local authorities and parents for many years so we're not pulling together scattered case law alongside out of date legislation.

Something needs to change for home educated kids. I can see why people don't think this is it, I can see how this could end up another tick box exercise or pipe dream that we can't do, I think it's missing many things people have been fighting for to better support home educated kids and their families, but we can't give every child the right to an education without involvement beyond the parents and right now, the involvement from the state is not happening and there is nothing legally, even with greater resources, that would supply that. Maybe the area I'm in is particularly bad - while improving, it's spent decades as an educational black hole, but I see too many home educated teenagers - most from the start so no schools to blame - and their families who are really educationally struggling and it just leads me to look at other countries that support parental decisions and home education & the support there even with their own cutbacks that families here aren't getting is heartbreaking.

" including intimate checks on our kids"

• This has actually happened locally in my old LA as soon as an HCP found out the child was EHE to 'check' for abuse. I wouldn't discount it. Many professionals overstep.

A siginificant chunk also way oversteps and expects much more from electively home educating parents than in other parts of society. School parents do not have to say they're using after school clubs - even though it will undoubtedly be forming part of their child's education. Why should home educators?

This bill is about control, not support. Or anything even close to it. They aren't for example; Offering easier access to GCSEs for EHE kids who wish to do them. In fact, the amendment to include it was rejected.

SEN kids should not have to wait to be deregistered simply because they have extra needs. No parent should be at risk of a school attendance order because they have forgotten to update a change with 15 days.

Countries in Europe doing it, doesn't mean it's better, in fact in europe it's mostly illegal or almost illegal to home ed there so I don't think it's good bar to base a comparison on. France has all but banned it. Before that they were in fact demanding 'inimate checks' on all home educated kids.

We're already seeing some colleges pull the 14-16 provision for EHE kids if they're not attached to a school as a result of the bill. How many other educational activities are going to be pulled because of the extra burden placed on education providers as a result of this bill?

The Badman Review was a shitshow of epic proportions.

I do agree that children with an EHCP should have to get permission from the LA to home educate. I've seen how often these children are failed in mainstream. We shouldn't be forcing parents to send them in at risk of fines and court and not allowing home education as an option.

Am I understanding this correctly and where can we give feedback? Sorry if I've missed a link there's a lot there and couldn't read it all.

That should read "I don't agree"!!!