The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill:

A disservice to home educated and special needs children to advance further state control

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024-25 (“the Schools bill”), was introduced on 17 December 2024. The bill is listed for second reading on 8 January 2025. The bill has stirred considerable debate regarding its implications for families, particularly those of home-educated children and children with special needs. In the first part of this article, I am going to address the former and touch on the Sara Sharif case. Later, I will briefly address the latter.

The tragic case of Sara Sharif

You may well have noticed that immediately after the sentencing was announced in the deeply upsetting and dreadful case of Sara Sharif, a 10-year-old girl found dead in Woking, her case became a focal point in discussions surrounding the introduction of a mandatory home-education register in the UK as proposed under the Schools bill. The marketing department for state control and propaganda never let a tragedy go to waste, and the gears of state nudging and framing instantly swung into action, with politicians, policymakers and the media unashamedly using Sara’s death to argue for stricter oversight of home-educated children by way of a register, of course framed as a solution to safeguarding vulnerable children like Sara. However, no one has, to date – to my knowledge – given any evidence that home educated children are more at risk than state educated children, and a closer examination of Sara’s tragic case reveals sizable flaws in using her tragedy as a rationale for a registering all children that are home educated. Why? Because Sara's death did not happen because of home education – it happened because she had vile care givers and the Court system in this country failed to intervene when concerns were raised about her via her school and social services.

The case and it’s misrepresentation

Concerns were raised about Sara Sharif’s care within a week of her birth in 2013, with her birth parents known to social services as early as 2010. Sara was also reported to social services multiple times whilst she was at school after teachers noticed bruises on her. Despite these reports, concerns raised by Surrey County Council, and three – yes three - sets of family court proceedings, all allegations about her care were never really tested in court, with Sara repeatedly being returned to her birth parents’ care, before finally being placed with her father and stepmother in 2019.

So, despite Sara attending school and authorities being alerted to potential concerns about her welfare by the school, as well as being known to social services since birth, no meaningful action was taken by the family Court to investigate or address the issues she faced, from birth, or when flagged by her school to social services. Ultimately, she went unprotected because of a failure in the system, NOT because she was home educated, and this is what her case shows. Despite these facts, Sara’s horrific and tragic death has been leveraged as justification for the implementation of a home-education register, merely because she had been withdrawn from primary school in April 2023, to be home educated, AFTER her school made a referral to social services due to concerns over bruising. Despite this, advocates in the media are now relentlessly propounding that Sara’s case points to the necessity of a home education register to ensure greater visibility of children outside the school system, theoretically preventing cases like hers, and somehow offering children blanket protection. Media advocates for such a register and enthusiastic state talking heads of course conveniently ignore the central issues here: Sara was visible to both her school and social services, and it was the Court system that failed her. Three times. It is therefore misleading to present her case as evidence of the need for greater oversight of home educated children, and to champion this bill as a way to do that. We should instead be addressing the systemic issues of Court and state failure that Sara’s case highlights. Media taking heads and nudging policy makers need to be honest about this – but of course they will not be.

The push for a home-education register purposefully conflates the failure of the state, the STATE RUN Court system and failing child protection abilities and decisions, with the practice of home education. There is, of course, a critical distinction between dedicated parents seeking a better, caring and more holistic education for their children, and the state's standardised, sanitised interpretation of education and care and all the failings that go with them - conveniently ignored by those within the power structure advocating for the register. More worryingly, and as has become increasingly commonplace, the current prevailing narrative seems to also be insisting that ALL children are inherently at risk all the time– but this risk in fact stems from EVERY parent, not the Court, and certainly not the state. All parents, not just the few, are now frequently portrayed as a primary threat to their children, never knowing what is best for them until the state lets them know, whilst the shortcomings of the state, the Court, and underfunded services, are brushed aside.

It has also been conveniently forgotten by all media talking heads and policy makers that the state, and perhaps even most schools, actually do not care about children, as evidenced by the enthusiasm of both to ruin a whole generation of children’s lives by locking them at home for almost 2 years for something which they were never at risk from. The damage caused from this ridiculous state overreach is unfathomable, and we are only just finding out now the level of harm and devastation that this has caused, which will continue for years to come. So, if children are at risk, I would look to the state as the biggest perpetrator of harm, rather than the vast majority of parents. In fact, the mind boggles at what abuse little Sara may have suffered during the lockdown imposed by the state – the very same state who did not care one iota about vulnerable children when we all had to supposedly “protect” granny from nothing, when that “protection”in fact meant lots of grannies were getting screwed over by the state in care homes, and dying as a result of the same. So, I do not want to hear, no I cannot stand to hear, the very same people now using Sara’s tragedy as a marketing and advertising tool to try and make us think they care about anyone but themselves. The state and the power structure behind it, along with all the arms and legs of the well-oiled marketing brigade, are the biggest sociopathic narcissists going. Nothing will change my mind after the last 4 years, and it is why I see this bill as very nefarious indeed.

Underlying motives for a home education register

The call for a home education register aligns with broader trends of increasing state control and data centralisation. Such a system would provide authorities with detailed information about home-educated children, including personal details about families and their educational practices. This data could be used for purposes beyond its stated intent, such as facilitating inter-agency data sharing or monitoring parental compliance with state-defined standards. This could pave the way for further encroachments into private family life, as authorities gain unprecedented access to the inner workings of households. A home-education register could also be a step towards standardising education across all settings, (you can only learn what the state says you can learn), limiting parental autonomy in deciding how and what their children are taught. This aligns with the broader agenda of centralising control over all areas of life, ensuring conformity with “state-prescribed” norms and values. For the “greater good”.

The marketed “assumption” that home education is inherently linked to safeguarding risks has, I think, been carefully crafted to perpetuate harmful stereotypes about home-educating families. Due to this, a home-education register will of course unfairly target families who choose to home-educate for legitimate reasons such as dissatisfaction with the mainstream education system, the need to provide a tailored learning environment for their children, a desire to move away from centralisation and/or an understandable complete loss of faith in the education system and teachers, given the lockdown debacle and how the state and teachers acted throughout the same. Given this, I would ask that people take a step back and think about Sara's case. If they do, they will see that it highlights deficiencies in the state, state run institutions and the existing child protection framework, not lack of oversight of home-educated children. And it does not show that home educated children are at any greater risk of being harmed. Had there been a home-education register when Sara was alive, this would, in fact, not have offered her any additional protection because the failures in her case were systemic and arose from her birth. Given this, tragically, the outcome of her case would be no different. The only thing that may have happened if the current bill had been law whilst Sara was alive, is that her parents would have been prevented from taking her out of school in the 4 months prior to her death. This is because under the bill, parents will lose the right to teach their children at home if social workers are investigating potential harm, or if a child is on a protection plan. However, would that have saved Sara? Or would social services have continued to make Court applications, with the Court doing nothing but returning Sara to her father and stepmother?

The home education register is one of the most controversial elements of this bill because it provides an easy way for increased government oversight and state control of home-educated children. The bill proposes mandatory registration with local authorities and regular inspections of home education settings. This imposes unnecessary burdens on families and unwarranted state interference into their business. For many parents, home education is a means to provide personalised, flexible learning that caters to a child's specific needs, a flexibility that failing state-run schools cannot offer. The added scrutiny proposed in the bill risks stifling the creativity and individualism central to home education and allows the state to get involved in yet another aspect of our lives. The bill also criminalises parents who fail to comply with registration or inspection requirements. How can these now be criminal offences I ask - where is the victim in the crime of not registering your child with the state for home education? The cynic in me might argue that penalising parents for not adhering to rigid bureaucratic systems, such as a register, will no doubt lead to unnecessary legal battles, and in that regard more state revenue in the form of court costs, amongst other things.

Instead of heavy-handed inspections and registration requirements, a more supportive, advisory approach to home education could be implemented under this bill. Local authorities could be tasked with providing guidance only and support for home educators when requested, ensuring they have access to necessary resources and training, rather than imposing punitive measures. Heck, we could even have better home education support for working parents, such as more home education centres to be part of, and family groups for more than a few hours a week – something that we do not currently have. We will, of course not get these, because the state does not want you to have any privacy in your life, particularly over the next generation. How will they know what you are telling them? Very dangerous for the power structure. So, with this in mind please do consider that public opinion on this issue is being shaped through a deliberate conflation of Sara’s case with “risks” of home education. By associating her death with a lack of oversight for home educated children, authorities and the media are fostering a climate of fear and mistrust toward home educators and making up problems that do not exist. This strategy of course shifts attention from state overreach and systemic failures—such as the inaction of the Court in Sara’s case—to an imagined danger inherent in alternative educational choices that simply is not there. This kind of framing conditions the public to accept increased state intervention in private family decisions as a necessary safeguard, even when evidence does not support this conclusion. As I have already stated, Sara's plight, tragic as it was, occurred while she was enrolled in school and known to social services. A home-school register would not have prevented her death, yet the case has been weaponised to justify a political process that expands state oversight.

The push for a home-education register, presented under the guise of safeguarding children, serves, of course, two broader objectives: engineering public acceptance of heightened surveillance, and expanding state control into private family life. Whilst the state likes to claim a legitimate role in protecting children, its track record tells a different story. Failures in child protection, both recent and historical, highlight the inadequacy of state interventions. Far from being the best entity to serve children—or anyone—the state is more invested in data collection, exerting control, and advancing policies that often disregard the well-being of the individuals it claims to serve.

A home education register will further undermine parental rights and personal freedoms. It will also distract from the systemic failures and corruption within state-run institutions. By framing this policy as a necessary safeguard, the state deflects accountability whilst simultaneously consolidating power and extending its reach into private affairs. It is therefore vital for us all to resist this encroachment and advocate for less state interference, not more. Families, not faceless institutions, are overall best positioned to determine what is in their children’s best interests.

Sara’s case is a reminder of the consequences of failures in child protection, and just how vile some people in this world are. The idea of a home-education register scratches the itch of addressing the trauma and outrage that many feel because of her death and the awful abuse that she suffered at the hands of her care givers. However, this is ultimately a distraction from the urgent need for us to address the dangerous issues of centralisation and ever-expanding state control dressed up as “safeguarding”, and the ongoing stripping of our human rights, something that has not been mentioned in the main stream media, nor the halls of power, (why would it be given their ultimate aim of controlling everything). But let me mention that latter issue here – a home education register throws up, amongst other things, the thorny issue of human rights, because it of course conflicts with the human right to private and family life, as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8 states:

"Everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

I am of course the first to point out that the state and the power structure give not one fig about adhering to “the law”. I realised long ago that the law is simply a weapon to be wielded against us, the plebians, and that the power structure simply divests itself from having to abide by it. But I mention this point now because this bill is coming up for its second reading and the human rights angle, along with sensitively pointing out the facts of Sara’s case, are things that people could perhaps raise with their MP, (if they can bear to), and ask them to vote against some of the provisions of this bill, particularly the home education register. If you are minded to do this, here is some information on the human rights angle that may help you compose a suitable letter.

Potential conflicts with Article 8

1. Interference in private family life

A mandatory home-education register would require families to disclose detailed information about their children and their educational choices to the state. This level of state involvement could be seen as an intrusion into private family life, particularly if parents are compelled to justify their decision to home educate or meet specific state-defined standards. Parents have the primary responsibility for their children's upbringing and education, and many view home education as an exercise of their right to decide what is best for their family. Forcing families to register and submit to state oversight could be interpreted as undermining their autonomy and privacy.

2. Data collection and sharing concerns

The register could involve the collection of sensitive personal data about children and their families, raising concerns about how this information would be stored, used, and shared. Excessive data collection or sharing with other agencies might constitute a disproportionate interference with family privacy, especially if it is not strictly necessary for the stated aim of safeguarding children. It might also represent a data protection concern. Where will such data be stored and who will control it and have access to it?

3. Proportionality and justification

Any interference with Article 8 rights must meet the test of proportionality. The state is obligated to therefore demonstrate that a mandatory register is necessary and proportionate to achieve its stated aim of safeguarding children. An argument to raise against proportionality is that the risks associated with home education are not widespread enough to justify such a sweeping measure, particularly when existing child protection mechanisms could be strengthened instead –(see below).

4. Balancing state and family interests

While the state may claim it has a legitimate interest in safeguarding children, (even though its actions speak very differently about the same), this interest must always be balanced against the right of families to live free from unnecessary state interference, so there needs to be proper legal scrutiny about whether a home-school register is a proportionate means of achieving safeguarding, or whether it imposes an excessive burden on families, infringing on their rights without sufficient justification.

According to the latest data from the Department for Education, there were 111,700 children in elective home education (EHE) as of the autumn term in 2024. I could not find any official figures on social services referrals for the same period for home educated children verses state educated children, but I did find an interesting article from 2021 which states:

“In 2019, follow up research looking only at referrals of children said to be at ‘significant risk of harm’ (Charles-Warner 2019) found that 4.2% of all home educated children were referred on that basis, compared to 2.3% of under five-year-olds and 2.0% of 5-16-year olds, giving statistically significant higher referral rates for home educated children than other children.

Of course, if the higher rate of referral was justified, we would see a corresponding higher rate of child protection plans amongst home educated children, but that is simply not the case. In fact, only 0.4 per cent of home educated children were subsequently subject to a child protection plan, compared to 0.7 per cent of other children under five, and 0.4 per cent of other children aged five to 16”

So, it seems that home educated children are at lower risk of having a child protection plan put in place, despite the higher referral rate. That referral rate likely, of course, reflects already increased scrutiny on home-educating families, rather than a higher incidence of genuine welfare concerns.

Special educational needs – a brief commentary

If you have got this far and you want to read about this aspect of the Schools bill, I have tried to summarise the same below. I have not covered everything – just taken a broad-brush approach. However, I hope what I say is helpful, although, as ever, I would remind everyone that what I say below is my personal point of view.

Children with special educational needs (SEN), long underserved by the educational system, are facing new challenges under this bill. The bills approach to these children is arguably insufficient and, in some cases, detrimental. While the bill aims to improve the coordination between schools and local authorities regarding SEN provisions, it fails to offer specific measures to tackle the underlying issues faced by these children, such as the shortage of properly trained staff, inadequate resources, and a lack of individualised support. Rather than empowering parents and educators to create flexible, child-centered solutions, the bill often falls back on one-size-fits-all policies that overlook the complexity of special needs education.

By focusing heavily on increasing attendance and school-based interventions, the bill risks marginalising children whose needs cannot be met within a traditional school environment. For example, children with severe autism, ADHD, or other neurodivergent conditions often require alternative learning environments that cater to their specific needs. Forcing these children into a rigid schooling system without appropriate adjustments will likely exacerbate existing challenges. This could lead to higher rates of school exclusion, increased stress for both children and parents, and an even greater divide in educational opportunities for children with special needs.

The bill should also be heavily criticised for its lack of concrete provisions regarding funding for special education services. Without adequate resources, the implementation of any new policies designed to help children with special needs will be futile. Many schools are already struggling to meet the needs of their SEN students due to budget cuts, and the additional burden of complying with the bill’s provisions could further stretch already limited resources.

The bill is heavily focused on SEN centralisation, (an obvious ongoing “theme”), with local authorities and government agencies given significant power over special needs provisions. Further bureaucracy will, however, make the system ever more difficult for SEN families to navigate, and they may be forced to comply with a range of requirements that are difficult to understand, leaving them with less time and energy to focus on their children’s education. The bill also does not account for the diverse needs of different communities, particularly in rural or less affluent areas where access to educational resources is already limited.

One of the most significant issues with the bill is the apparent lack of consultation with key stakeholders. Parents of children with special needs, as well as education professionals, have expressed concerns that their voices have not been adequately heard during the drafting of the bill and continue to be ignored. This lack of meaningful consultation means that the legislation is not well-informed by the lived experiences of those it supposedly aims “to serve”.

The bill should allocate more resources for SEN children, including funding for individualised education plans (IEPs), better training for teachers and support staff, and ensure that alternative learning environments are available for those who need them. Parents should be involved in every step of the decision-making process regarding their children’s education. This means giving them a more active role in the development of their child’s IEP, rather than leaving them at the mercy of bureaucrats or school authorities. A collaborative approach would ensure that families are supported, not penalised.

In summary, this bill fails to address the real concerns of home-educated families and those of children with special needs. It leans too heavily on bureaucracy and top-down interventions, which marginalise already vulnerable groups. For the bill to work, it must be revised to focus on personalised support, parental empowerment, and adequate funding for special needs education.

There is obviously more in the bill that what I have commented on above, so I do recommend that you read a summary of its aims, and the concerns around all of the same, to be fully informed about what I regard as a very damaging piece of legislation that could come onto our statute books in the near future. A couple of articles that may help with this can be found here and here.

That’s all for now folks, stay sane in a mad world, and I will be back soon.