That doyen of liberalism, John Stuart Mill, opined that, “A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body.” On Liberty (1859).
This is intended to be the first of a sequence of articles on how authoritarianism is being implemented in 2025.
Here I refer to the draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill as it stood when it was brought to the House of Lords from the Commons. It may yet be subject to amendments, so the description herein may ultimately differ from the resulting Act in some details. I focus here on provisions related to home education.
Why are children’s care provisions in the same Bill as issues over education? Those who have been paying attention will recall that one of the principal tactics of political control is the protection racket. Education is thus being presented in this Bill as an aspect of child protection.
A brief critique of the Bill has been presented by Asher Gratt, as well as the closely associated government guidelines Unregistered Independent Schools and Out-of-School Settings: Guidance for Local Authorities(May 29, 2025).
As I write, the Bill has passed through all stages in the House of Commons and is at Committee Stage in the Hose of Lords. According to Asher Gratt there was considerable concern over the Bill at its second reading in the Lords.
Under this Bill, Academies would be forced to adopt the National Curriculum. That leaves only home schooling as a means of avoiding the National Curriculum. Despite some suggestions to the contrary, the Bill does not impose the National Curriculum on home educators. However, it does open the door to other means of imposing control on home education, which might ultimately amount to much the same thing.
The requirement to provide “suitable education” applies to home education, though I could not see this term defined in the Bill. Browne Jacobson solicitors advise that the phrase means “efficient full-time education suitable to age, ability and aptitude and (in the case of a local authority in England) to any special educational needs”. However, it is not clear to me that this minimal definition is what will actually be applied in practice.
Permission to home educate a child of compulsory school age must be obtained from the local authority (LA). Under the Bill, the LA must refuse consent if they consider, (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 the LA must grant consent (section 30, 434A(6)).
The threat here, and throughout this Bill, is that it seems open to LA interpretation what constitutes “best interests” or “suitable arrangements”.
Moreover, as written, the above requirement means that if the opinion of a LA is that a school would provide better education than home schooling – and hence be in the child’s best interests – then they they “must refuse consent”.
One of the new provisions in the Bill is the requirement for home educated children and their parents to be registered with the LA. This requires a certain minimum of information, including the names of all individuals who will be delivering education (whether parents or not), and the number of hours education to be provided by each individual, together with the address(es) at which it takes place. This includes education via internet, in which case the web site must be specified. Also, the amount of time the child spends receiving education without any parent of the child being actively involved in the tuition or supervision must be specified. (Section 31, 436C(1)).
The Bill empowers the LA to require any individual to confirm that they are providing, or have provided, the claimed hours of education to the stated child (section 31, 436E(3)(b)).
Section 31, 436C(3) adds, “a register under section 436B may also contain any other information the local authority considers appropriate”.
Parents wishing to register their child for home schooling have 15 days to comply with the above required information. In this respect note that the “suitable arrangements” criterion will undoubtedly be failed if any of the required detail is missing.
A rejected application for home school registration cannot be followed by another request until at least 6 months has expired (during which time I presume school attendance would be compulsory).
Section 31, 436E(1)(a) refers to provision of out-of-school education to a child for “more than the prescribed amount of time without any parent of the child being actively involved in the tuition or supervision” (my emphasis).
Similarly, in the context of monetary penalties to be imposed on home-educating parents for non-compliance with the Bill’s many requirements we read, “the amount of the monetary penalty is to be the prescribed amount” (section 31, 436E(9)).
Section 32, 436S(2) states that, in relation to England, “‘prescribed’ is to mean ‘prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State’”. In other words, we do not know what ‘prescribed’ means because a Minister can, post hoc, impose a ruling on its meaning outwith primary legislation and hence not subject to debate in parliament.
In the context of fines, note that refusal to pay such penalties would invoke the same provisions by which county courts can recover unpaid penalty charges. This includes taking the money directly from your salary or your bank account, or using bailiffs to seize your goods, or placing a “charge” on your family home – which then enables the court to sell your home to acquire the money. (See Schedule 31A, clause 7 ‘Enforcement’).
The LA can serve a “preliminary notice for a school attendance order” if, in their judgment, the child is not receiving “suitable education” or the parents have failed to provide “sufficient information, on time (15 days)”.
Following a preliminary order, section 32, 436I(1) states that a local authority must serve a school attendance order on a child’s parent if they have failed to satisfy them, within the specified period, that the child is receiving “suitable education” and that it is in the “best interests” of the child to receive education otherwise than by regular attendance at school (my quote marks).
Note that this places the burden of proof on the parents, and the standard required they must meet is decided by the LA without explicit definition. However, the Bill continues, in section 32, 436I(3),
“For the purpose of determining whether an order must be served under this section in respect of a child, the local authority—
(a) must consider all of the settings where the child is being educated and where the child lives,
(b) must consider how the child is being educated and what the child is learning, so far as is relevant in the particular case, and
(c) may request the child’s parent on whom the preliminary notice has been served under section 436H to allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives.”
Here, then, is the provision to permit the LA to impose their own interpretation of the adequacy of “what the child is learning”. So, whilst the National Curriculum is not prescribed within the Bill, the LA may presumably impose its elements via this route. For example, the contents of the RSE part of the National Curriculum could be imposed on home schoolers in individual cases.
Indeed, it is likely that LAs will expect education on RSE which is broadly comparable in content and intent to the Department for Education’s statutory guidance for schools. They could defend this via expected safeguarding standards.
The above provision also includes the option to request a visit to the child’s home. Whilst this does not amount to routine inspection, and the word used is “request” rather than “require”, one would be naïve to think that a refusal would not have repercussions. It would almost certainly result in a claim by the LA that parents had failed to satisfy them that the child was receiving “suitable education” and so a school attendance order would probably follow.
Legal opinion is aligning with the House of Lords to condemn the overreach of the Bill, and specifically its attempts to undermine parental authority in favour of state surveillance and control, for example…
KC Professor Mark Hill has said that the Bill is in direct violation of Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (EHRC).
KC Aidan O’Neill has provided a detailed legal commentary on the Bill as it currently stands, including a long section on the home school provisions. He notes that “the requirement for the compulsory registration of all homeschooled children – regardless of any specific welfare concerns or any issues around the suitability of the education being provided to individual children within their families – would on its face appear to breach the requirements of Article 14 ECHR”. O’Neill agrees with a briefing document from The Christian Institute in regard to violation of Article 14, specifically on the issue of unjustified differential treatment for the homeschooled compared to those children who are educated in school. He also notes that homeschoolers’ requirement to provide the specified information “under pain of criminal sanction” may well be regarded as “constituting a disproportionate (and hence Convention incompatible) interference in the Article 8 ECHR rights to respect for (their) private and family life”. The Bill, he opines, treats homeschoolers as “a suspect category”.
KC David Wolfe, an education lawyer with over 30 years experience, has two major concerns with the Bill, both of which are in line with my discussion, above, namely,
(i) the proposed “best interests” requirement, which – in his view – would represent the greatest undermining of parents in the history of our education law, and would do so uniquely for parents who choose to home educate, without any sufficient explanation or justification; and,
(ii) The proposed register of education providers, which will require people and organisations providing structured learning to children…to provide full details to a local authority register on pain of a fine, but only in relation to children who are being home educated.
Like The Christian Institute, Wolfe notes that (ii) would include religious instruction, e.g., at a Sunday School, as well as private music lessons or private sports coaching, and perhaps Scouts and Guide troops.
Wolfe’s analysis is recommended as a particularly authoritative deconstruction of the State’s attempt, via this Bill, to “override the parentally-preferred way of educating their child (even though satisfied that the parental provision is suitable)”.
As for the Unregistered Independent Schools and Out-of-School Settings: Guidance for Local Authorities, published by the Department for Education, Asher Gratt is right to regard it as “sinister”. It delivers the message that “unregistered” means “unacceptable to us”, and its purpose is clearly to do away with them if they can. For example, the Guidance states,
“Settings operating as unregistered independent schools can:
- deny children access to a suitable education
- potentially place children at risk of harm
Unregistered independent schools are illegal and operating outside the law.”
The two bullet points make a unsubstantiated slur, and the last statement is simply wrong – and the DfE will know it full well. As Gratt notes, “In fact, under Section 96 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, it is only unlawful to operate a full-time unregistered school that provides full-time education to five or more pupils of compulsory school age. This does not apply to part-time settings, supplementary education or home education. Yet the guidance fails to make this distinction, creating the misleading impression that any non-registered setting is automatically illegal or dangerous.”
In short, the Bill and associated Guidance are attempts to gain authoritarian control over education, stifling our freedoms and usurping parental authority over their own children. In Appendix C of this post I noted that, in 2022, the Government Legal department stated that “There is no automatic right to contact between a parent and child”. In other words that your children are not really yours but are the Government’s, and the Government may or may not grant you visitation rights. This is the growing mindset betrayed again in this Bill: that the State owns your children.