Beginner’s Guide to the Children Not in School (CNIS) Clauses of the CWS Bill that Welsh Government want applied to Wales

(CWS Bill – the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill)

Bill itself as it stands on 5.2.26 – view here

39 – LA consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

434A – LA consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

Even if just on a CIN plan-

Even if the reasons for this are because of problems with school, Even where there are no concerns about parental care.
Even if just investigated under s47 within the last 5 years,
Even if this due to malicious reporting,
Even if SS have understood that-
Such massive scope for abuse and perpetuation of coercive control by abusive ex-partners or other agents.
Even when, as in the vast majority of such investigations, no cause for concern is found including no cause for concern about the parents and home.
If aggrieved – only option is appeal to SoS or Welsh Ministers.
No independent appeals, advocacy, complaints, tribunal or mediation services or mechanisms.
All can do is throw self on mercy of the one who instigated and approved of these very measures. So not exactly impartial or independent then,
Someone with a very vested interest in these measures and actions by council staff being seen to be appropriate.

434B – Mandatory LA meetings prior to withdrawal of children from school

Extensive pilot schemes to start with of up to 30% of LAs.

Child must be present at these meetings with the LA except for exceptional circumstances but doesn’t say who gets to decide that.
Given the rhetoric elsewhere placing the LA as the ones to act in the best interests of a child rather than parents, it would seem likely that it is the LA who would be the ones permitted to decide if there are exceptional circumstances or not.
Cannot remove child from roll until notified this meeting has taken place.
So, is the parent deregistering a child who is unable to attend school still liable for fines whilst waiting for such a meeting or for the child to be able to attend such a meeting?

40 – Registration

436B – Duty to register a child not in school

LA MAY request the child’s parents to allow the LA to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives.

If this is refused, the LA “MUST” consider that to be a relevant factor in determining whether to commence legal proceedings towards a SAO – “whether to serve a preliminary notice under section 436H”.
So – that’s not exactly a “request is it?
More like threatening coercive control.
Within 15 days of placing a child on the register, the LA MUST “consider the settings where the child is being educated” that the LA knows about.
Note – that’s plural – settings.

436C – Content of registers

The term “register” is a significant misnomer.
These are not just registers of identifying info, not just lists of names and addresses.
These are extensive databases of detailed information about the life of each child.
Plus of course all the ethical and legal issues of requiring registration of own children even in absence of legitimate concerns.
Plus of course the concerns of those with clear experience in these areas that registers do not protect but are counterproductive and can be damaging. See the views of the British Association of Social Workers, of the Victoria Climbe Association, and of so many others sound the warning.
These “registers” require:
Name of EACH parent – no exceptions cited in the Bill – significant issue in domestic violence and complex family situations.
An estimate of the overall total amount of time that a child spends receiving education from parents, and from persons other than parents.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of home education. How?
It betrays a belief that education is “received” from parents as if parents are teaching and the ones leading the learning process. It shows discrimination against child-led approaches that are often the most effective ones for home educated children.
It also betrays a belief that there are times when a child is not learning, that only when a child is being somehow taught or instructed by a parent or other is the child learning, or is that learning valid and worthwhile. Most home educating parents, including many of those who follow more structured and semi structured approaches to education, and many experts in educational pedagogy, will tell you that it’s often when the adult stops trying to teach or lead that true learning opportunities and experiences start to naturally emerge.
Many would also tell you that, if are using adult-led approaches, that short and sweet approaches are best, that allowing copious amounts of free play following these is vital to allow thorough processing and integration of the learning experience.
This concept that the amount of time spent being “taught” by an adult, with the adult leading the learning process, being a measure of the quality of the education, as if more hours of adult led learning = better education shows a lack of understanding of home education pedagogy.
If particular provider is used, then required to provide info about them, including time spent with them, including time without parent present.
A whole load of other info, whether ALN/SEND needs, whether enquire had EVER been made under s47 (even if no cause found for concern), whether EVER been CIN (whatever the reason, even if the reason was school related issues), whatever actions taken, whether EVER been assessed as having needs for care or looked after.
And lots of other bits of information, including, chillingly, “any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a LA or educational institutions that the SoS or Welsh ministers consider to be included in the register”.
So Welsh ministers (or SoS in England) can basically subsequently decide to require parents to report and LAs to document whatever they want.
And the “register” MAY also contain any other info that the LA want too.
Can you see why the term “register” is completely inappropriate?
Extensive digital databases of highly sensitive information, required without consent i.e. mandatory.
And then of course there’s some additional extra bureaucracy admin detail for the council staff of what they have to do with these “registers”.

436D – Provision of information to local authority: parents

Parents MUST inform the LA that the child is eligible for registration,
MUST provide any of the above info that is available to them.
MUST inform of ANY changes to ANY of the very extensive information held on the “register”.
LAs MUST ask at least once a year for all this information (and therefore parents MUST respond, LAs may not ask more often than every 3 months.
Given the time taken to provide all this information and the time taken for LAs to process and respond with any questions, this leaves parents and families in a perpetual cycle of accountability and administrative duties, in a perpetual cycle of not knowing if the LA will commence legal action against them.
Have to comply and provide all this info
Within 15 days of starting EHE,
Withing 15 days of LAs requesting the information
Within 15 days of any change,
And if no longer EHE, then notify the LA within 15 days of this being the case. (It will tell you later of fines if you don’t).

436E – Provision of information to local authorities: education providers

LAs MAY require them to provide identifying info and amount of time spent in education with them, including how much time without parents present.
If LAs ask, the provider MUST comply. Within 15 days.
If not – fines for the educational provider
They get a warning and the chance to make “representations” –
BUT representations to the ones trying to fine them.

436F – Use of information on the register

If Welsh ministers or SoS want any info from these “registers” – en masse or on individual children, LAs MUST give it.
LAs may give the info to others if they want to.
Including to Ofsted or His Majesty’s chief inspector of education and training in Wales
If the child moves to a different LA area, the previous LA MUST provide a lot of info to the new LA, and may provide additional info too. Whatever the reason for the move.

436G – Support

SOOOO many duties placed on parents.
And LAs in return?
LAs MUST provide that remarkably nebulous, rather patronising and pretty useless concept of “advice and information”.
Those who have never home educated giving “advice and information” to those who home educate.
No duty to provide reasonable access to affordable and appropriate examination centres – just to give information about them.
Presumably that simply means information that there aren’t any in the area when that’s the case?
And absolutely no duty on the LA to do anything about it.
In England, LAs MUST offer the opportunity to give feedback and experiences to the LA of their practice in forums held at least twice a year.
Remarkably, this is the only amendment of the CNIS section that WG do not want to apply to Welsh LAs – the Welsh Government do not want any duty on LAs to hear constructive feedback or allow home educators opportunities to address problems with their practice in a reasonable manner.
Schedule 31A
Fines if don’t provide information – this seems to apply to education providers rather than parents?
They get a warning and the chance to make “representations” to the ones trying to fine them.
If late paying fine – the amount demanded goes up.
They can appeal to a tribunal – but that doesn’t appear to be independent, seems to be the same department.
Order of county court if don’t pay it all.
Not exactly motivation to people to support or provide enriching experiences and provision home educated children and young people then!
Rather, quite a considerable deterrent to providing any type of beneficial experiences and opportunities to home educated young people.

41 – School Attendance Orders (SAOs)

436H – Preliminary notice for SAO MUST be served by LA if they consider the education is not suitable in their opinion

MUST serve SAO if even just enquiries under s47, as well as if actions- presumably if the council consider this in the child’s “best interests”, not automatically for every enquiry,
but this places the council in a role that overrides parents’ roles and duties and indeed the rights of children in determining what is in the child’s “best interests”
even if only at enquiry stage of s47,
when the vast majority of such enquiries find no cause for concern about parents.
Preliminary notice for SAO MAY be served by LA if parents haven’t given info requested in the tight timeframe given in the Bill of 15 days, OR even if the info is considered incorrect.
LAs MUST consider the settings (plural) where the child is educated and where the child lives when considering whether to issue preliminary notice of SAO.
And the LA MAY request to visit the child in any of the homes in which they live.
If parents “refuse” this “request” (notice the terminology of “refuse” a “request” rather than decline it, revealing that of course this isn’t really a “request” but a demand) –
Then LAs MUST consider this to be a relevant factor in whether to issue a preliminary notice of SAO – Ie “refuse” a “request” for whatever reason and you’re more likely to have legal action started against you to force your child to school, whether they or you believe that is in their “best interests”.
SO – normal loving healthy parents are only allowed to act in a child’s “best interests” if no one makes any malicious reports or complaints AND if they comply with whatever a council staff employee wants in terms of contact with their own child in their own home.
Only 15 days to respond to such demands.
If don’t satisfy the LA within those 15 days – SAO issued.
In serving SAO, LAs MUST consider how the child is being educated and what they are learning, and MAY request to visit a child in any of the homes they live in.
Again, if that “request” is “refused”, the LA must consider this a relevant factor deciding of the parent has “satisfied” them and so choosing to issuing SAOs.
Such SAO stands for the rest of that child’s childhood, until no longer CSA, unless revoked.
Lot of bumpf about naming of schools, including if child has EHCP or IDP, but the main theme of this is that parents and children don’t get a say which school the child has to go to, it’s all up to council staff to decide (unless the council staff are generous enough to name more than one school to give an option).
In choosing which school to name on a SAO, the LA MUST consult with the school – but of course no requirement to consult with the parent – or with the child.
No requirement to consider if there have been negative past experiences with that school (only if they have been permanently excluded from it).
But it would seem you can get around that by applying yourself to a different school in the meantime – but of course no guarantees they have space, and you’ve only 15 days to find a space in a school that’s anywhere near “suitable” even if you believe your child is able to attend.
SAOs revoked – if no longer under enquiries for eg – but surely s47 enquiries take an awful lot longer than the 15 days in which to comply with a SAO???
So child compelled to attend school against their and their parents wishes, until eventually months down the line, with whatever form of damage done to their wellbeing and education by enforcing this without consent, then ok, now you can home educate again.
If families are “aggrieved” and want a SAO revoked – only chance is to appeal to Welsh ministers – or SoS in England – to the very people who have set up such a system.

S436Q – Offence of failure to comply with SAO

Acting in what you believe is your child’s best interests in not complying with a SAO under any of these circumstances is an offence.
Unless you can prove that this is in the child’s “best interests”.
Prove to who?
Seemingly to the same people who have already decided it isn’t?
Your only real chance of revocation of a SAO is to risk a criminal conviction.
To allow yourself to be prosecuted, in the hope that the magistrate has enough understanding of educational law and alternative educational pedagogy to appreciate your and your child’s experiences and perspective to acquit you.
But of course, if that gamble doesn’t pay off, you have a criminal conviction and your child has a SAO for life (i.e. the rest of their childhood, until no longer CSA).
That criminal conviction for parents? Not just a fine but includes potential of imprisonment, of custodial sentence.
When you are the primary advocate for your child’s wellbeing, when you are the one who nurtures, raises and educated them, the one on which they rely – that’s quite some risk with their wellbeing and education, let alone with own employment and career, housing, reputation and a myriad of other consequences of receiving a criminal conviction for trying to advocate for your child’s well-being.

436P (7) and (8) preventing disabled children from requesting revocation of council decisions.

436P(7) and (8)

Bars parents of children with special needs and have an IDP from requesting the revocation of a school attendance order.

So, families of children with disabilities prevented from even asking for a SAO to be revoked, purely on grounds of disability.

Bear in mind that SAO process has no independent appeals, complaints, advocacy, mediation or tribunal service.

The only option to challenge it is through the courts, which is only if parents choose to try to trigger such a court hearing by not complying with a SAO, thus being guilty of a criminal offence unless exonerated. With no advocacy services, parents either have to fund their defence or defend themselves in court, whereas the council has a whole legal team at their disposal. Not exactly a fair or level playing field for anyone.

More information on the issues with this clause, including on the KC opinion citing this as likely unlawful and the basis for legal challenge, can be found here:

42 – CNIS processing of information

…And, as if all that isn’t bad enough, the final sting in the tail of this delightful and insightful Bill…

43 – Guidance on CNIS

436U – LAs MUST have regard to guidance on CNIS from Welsh ministers (or SoS in England) – ANY guidance that a minster may subsequently wish to issue is AUTOMATICALLY STATUTORY.

So – this is only the tip of the iceberg.