The Children’s Commissioner has produced a hyperbolic and emotionally charged ‘Briefing for Peers on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2025.’ The briefing seeks to demonise families, particularly home educating families, by drawing on highly emotive events such as the death of Sara Sharif. It is important to be clear that Sara Sharif did not die because she was home educated. She was well known to Social Services and she had previously been in Local Authority care. In the weeks prior to her death a teacher noticed bruising on her face and the family were investigated by Social Services who took no further action.
Current legislation requires that the Local Authority is informed if a child is withdrawn from school and so the authorities absolutely knew that Sara Sharif has been withdrawn from school to be educated at home. The LA already has the duty to ensure that all children under their remit are receiving a ‘suitable and efficient education.’
Regarding home education, the Children’s Commissioner suggests to Peers that all families who have been referred to Social Services in the 12 months prior to a decision to move to home education, should be required to obtain permission from the Local Authority. At first glance, this might seem reasonable, but here she is not talking about children deemed by the Social Services to be at risk (children on Children in Need or Child Protection Plans), she is talking about all children where a referral has been made, but no further action has been taken. Make no mistake, she is making it clear that parents in these situations cannot possibly be ‘innocent’:
“That should include a requirement to obtain consent from the local authority before a child is removed from school, in any case where a child has been referred to social services for a Child in Need or Child Protection enquiry in the last 12 months, and where the primary need was abuse or neglect.”
Given the Children’s Commissioner’s experience, it is inconceivable that she cannot perceive the problems here. Anyone can make an entirely anonymous referral to the Social Services without fear of reprisal or identification. An abusive, disgruntled or ideologically motivated ex-partner or family member, or neighbour or member of the public, could cause the most extraordinary upheaval in a family’s life; not only by introducing unnecessary Social Services involvement, but also by ending a family’s plan to make decisions that are best for the children — i.e. by removing them from school to educate them at home, or by choosing home education from the outset.
This appears to be an ideologically motivated briefing designed to persuade peers into supporting this dangerous Bill, on the false premise that proposed further restrictions on home education are purely about safeguarding. The Children’s Commissioner makes it clear that she wishes that every child would attend a ‘fantastic school’, but any ‘education otherwise’ goes unmentioned. The Children’s Commissioner is therefore (at best) ambivalent about education outside of a regular school setting. The Children’s Commissioner’s power and influence is significant, and so are the consequences on conscientious parents and their children of implying that elective home education is inherently risky.
Marianne Tomlinson
ppadmin
