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).”

I was wrong about the EHCP aspect however things are changing for SEN kids and any kid with a CPP or S47 in place (parents who deregister are frequently maliciously reported by schools upon deregistration, so this could be open to abuse)

The specific SEN bit is here.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5264314-childrens-wellbeing-and-schools-bill-its-just-a-a-hoem-ed-register

For some reason it wouldn't let me quote it!

The Call for Evidence is here;
https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2025/january/childrens-wellbeing-and-schools-bill-call-for-evidence/

Don't worry about missing something. I've read it multiple times and I'm sure I've still missed some bits!

Thanks for posting this - I hadn't actually realised quite how much it's imposing on home Ed, or that the need for permission applies automatically for kids with SEN.

It already made me uneasy. I think the pp nails it in saying that the bill is about control, not support.

I find it quite horrifying that at the whim of a council employee, you may not be able to remove your child from a harmful and damaging environment. An environment you have no control over, because the council allocates and runs the school.

How can that be OK? Adults are never put in that situation, unless they've been sentenced to jail - and that requires a trial, where they can defend themselves.

I also completely agree that it won't stop any actually harm - more budget to follow up the existing laws is what's needed for that.

So it will cause significant harm to a small number of law-abiding families, without providing any protection to children at risk.

There isn't universal support for this amongst political parties, I don't think. Definitely one to write to MPs about.

Well said.

I have some sympathy, but can we stop the school bashing? The school repeatedly raised concerns about Sara Sharif.

And I would like to see evidence of schools “maliciously” reporting parents.

If everyone concerned about the consequences of chronic underfunding of mainstream and special education and a wholly unsuitable curriculum could agree that the current system needs massive change for the benefit of ALL children and teachers, we might get to a point where families feel less need to HE. (And children in families for whom that is simply not a choice, which is the vast majority, will benefit too.)

Change would be great, but don't remove the safety net of being able to Home Ed in the meantime (or even when it's improved).

It's the imbalance which is wrong. It doesn't take loads of schools to be evidenced as maliciously reporting kids for this to be a huge, life-changing problem for your one individual child.

Where the harm to specific individuals is immediate and huge, then a new law should not be imposed for some wishy washy, hand-wavey, non-evidenced, clearly unlikely to materialise, possible widespread 'good'.

The safety improvements would be better achieved through changes to the institutions rather than controls on the families. But it isn't about improvements, it's about control.

I have sympathy for home ED parents and I agree that this comes across as control rather than support.

on a different note, I am appalled by what the government is doing to curb the freedom of academies, many of which are a huge positive example such as the Michaela school.

I also disagree with the changes to the curriculum and I feel very sorry for the children who have to drop Latin as funding was removed.

this is all a bit of a Borg movement to do what they consider to be in line with their own ideology with regards to how schools should be run. Sadly there is no money for any of it.

if you can link to any petition, I will sign it.

OP, you need to start a new thread with the title something goverment want children with ECHP to only be allowed to be de registered and home educated with the permission of the LEA. A small paragraph of explaination, a link of where to share your views and then quote the suggested laws.

You will get much more engagement.

When you say give feedback do you mean things like write to your MP? And give evidence to the bill committee? That’s all we can do at present although it’s coming up to the time we need to be contacting the Lords as a the bill is nearly at that stage.

“I find it quite horrifying that at the whim of a council employee, you may not be able to remove your child from a harmful and damaging environment. An environment you have no control over, because the council allocates and runs the school.”

This is the bit that is most worrying. It assumes that all council employees are both intelligent, capable and have good intentions.
As we know as home educators this is far from the case even now.

What also worries me is that the bill states the person assessing has the absolute power to simply state ‘education unsuitable’ and slap a school attendance order on us when there is NO guidance whatsoever in gen bill as to what constitutes “a suitable education”. It is left wide open to interpretation by a person from the council who could have no experience of home education, no knowledge of how children learn, no knowledge of SEND etc.

I think you might have got more discussion on this if you hadn't filled the first page with a wall of text on points. I genuinely couldn't read it and many people wouldn't have bothered to get past it. It's something that is very worth discussing, so perhaps a new thread without all of that will mean more people access it.

My two pence worth is that the home ed community is fighting publicly for there to be no register and that puts people off their arguments. The rest of the valid points get lost in "what are you trying to hide".

I am one of the many currently home educating become no one will provide my children with additional needs a suitable education. I didn't set out to do this and would frankly much prefer they skipped happily off to school every day. Yet the bill seems determined to demonise me for trying to ensure that my children learn something. If the same council employees will be policing this that are currently refusing support as many children as they can get away with, then it all starts looking rather worrying.

It's something that comes up frequently in home ed groups. Parents having issues for years, which the schools haven't fixed. E.g. unmet SEN needs, bullying etc and then when the parent deregisters reporting 'concerns' to social services, despite not every bringing them up before.

Don't get me wrong, some schools do a great job, but some are seriously shit, and LAs do sometimes give the wrong information (which is becoming more common, potentially since the bill was published but it was an issue before) which leads to other issues including refusing to deregistration by the school, even in mainstream schools.

With Sara Sharif the school absolutely did everything through could, it was social services who failed her by not following up the very valid concerns and not using the existing framework properly.

I was actually wrong with that, so probably better not to start a thread with that title!

But the law is changing around deregistration for kids in special schools.

For parents who have kids with SEN.

Michael Charles is breaking down the bill into bitesize chunks. He's a specialist solicitor.

www.facebook.com/share/18RvFyzN6c/