One of the clauses of the CWS Bill that the Welsh Government are seeking to apply to Wales.

What are the problems with this?

The Welsh Government (WG) have recently produced a generic copy and paste response and defence of their choice to continue to pursue this LCM, which has been sent to people who have written to express concerns.

That generic response from WG:

Claims the meetings are to offer support and information,
but that can be sent out via email or post, and parents can ask for this if wanted.

The WG generic response also claims the meetings are to be sure parents know what they are undertaking. Again, that information can be sent out as and when required.

For both of those aims of the meeting, there is no need for the child to be present if the child does not wish to be.

So those cannot be the underlying reasons for such meetings.

Unfortunately, the generic response gives a somewhat misleading portrayal of the proposed meetings in what it also does not say. For example, it does not state that the child would be compelled to attend and that they could not be removed from the school roll until they consented to this.

This raises a range of issues and concerns.

What is the likelihood of the conversations being to undermine or influence family decisions?

Especially bearing in mind the intention openly expressed by a number of LAs to reduce the numbers of children deregistering from school?

Especially given any pre-existing belief in staff that school is the best place for children?

Would such meetings be to empower parents

or to sow seeds of insecurity in their and their children’s minds?

Do the staff involved believe they are able to determine what is in the child’s “best interests”?

Compelling a child to attend such a meeting before permitting deregistration is not exactly trauma-informed practice. There are profound potential implications for the wellbeing of children suffering from school-based trauma.

What would be the intended outcome measure of these pilots be?

To reduce the numbers of children deregistering from school?
That would be consistent with the openly stated objective of a number of LAs.
It would fit with the tone and content of the CNIS sections of the CWS Bil.

And it would certainly fit with the Prime Minister’s comments of his government’s intention to have tougher regulations on home education, “to raise the bar higher on opting out” (i.e. to make deregistration more difficult), because of a belief in the importance of schools. It would also match the rhetoric portrayed in the media of an increase in numbers of home educated children being something to be concerned about rather than celebrated.

Exceptional circumstances – who gets to decide?

The CWS Bill does mention that these meetings that the child must attend unless exceptional circumstances apply. There is no information in the Bill of who would make the decision of whether exceptional circumstances applied.
given that these meetings are mandatory and non-consensual, it would seem unlikely therefore that the decision on whether exceptional circumstances apply would be given to the parent. With the Bill elsewhere placing council staff as the determiners of best interests, it would seem most likely that it is they who would be expected to make this decision and not than parents.

Would the child not consenting be an exceptional circumstance?

If not, how does that meet with their human rights?

How does that meet with their right to have their voice heard, if and when that voice says “no”.

Implications of inevitable delays

There would be an inevitable delay in deregistration because of arranging these meetings.

No time frame is given for these.
For example, parents can face fines if they do not provide information within 15 days of this being requested,

But there is no penalty for LAs if they do not swiftly arrange such a meeting within a given time-period. There is nothing to prevent LAs delaying these meetings.

There is no information on whether families would still be liable for fines for non-attendance while waiting for these meetings.

No information if parents would be still liable for fines or prosecution if the child were physically or psychologically unable or unwilling to attend such a meeting.

There would appear to be no appreciation of trauma-informed approaches by mandating that the child attend such a meeting.

Impact of these meetings?

No impact assessment is available for these at Westminster because these were added as amendments,

Let alone no impact assessments for these in Wales.

Although bear in mind that the English Impact Assessment on the Bill as progressed through the House of Commons has been considered to be “not fit for purpose”

No information on the costings including of running and evaluating the pilot.

Have any with lived experience, be these parents or children, been involved in the development of this policy, in the decision to pilot such measures, in the design of the pilot? 
To help those in government appreciate the impacts they may not have thought of?
Of the inevitable unintended consequences?

It would appear not.

Outcome measures for the pilot – and would those reveal the real motivation for these meetings

There is no information on what would be considered appropriate or desirable outcome measures of such pilots.

Will it be numbers dissuaded from deregistering?

Would it be subsequent satisfaction of parents and children with information and support received?
If so, would that be evaluated by surveying each family immediately when they would be relieved at just being able to deregister but not yet had time to evaluate the usefulness or otherwise of any advice or information?

Or when the family have had time to adjust to their new home educating lifestyle and been able to compare any information and advice given to their own experience and the benefit of learning from other home educators?

Evaluation of the pilots

No information on who would undertake these pilots.

Would this be truly independent evaluation?

Or would it be undertaken by private companies with strong government connections, as was noted in the Welsh Government’s commissioned evaluation of their EHE guidance?

Would the commission for the evaluation of these pilots be given to private companies where government funding provides a significant income?

Would the experiences of parents and children be sensitively, independently and objectively evaluated?
Or would only LA and any school staff present be asked to participate in the evaluation, as occurred with the Welsh Government commissioned evaluation of the effectiveness of their EHE guidance.

The problem of requiring future plans:

The Bill requires the LA to elicit from the parent “how they plan to meet this duty” in relation to ensuring their child receives a suitable education.

No information is given on what this entails.


The issue of requiring home educating families, especially newly deregistering ones, to make future plans is highly problematic.

The expectation for parents to do so also reveals a lack of understanding of home education.

Many approaches to home education are child-led.

The LA are instructed to elicit plans from parents, which therefore are adult-led.

So, the LA are effectively instructed to expect and accept adult-led approaches to education only.

Thus, this instruction would be discriminatory against child-led approaches to home education, and inhibitory to the provision of alternative educational processes and practices, especially child-led and child-focused approaches.

It would also limit the capacity of families to explore different learning styles, materials, approaches and experiences if expected to commit to these beforehand.

This is because for education to be suitable it has to be seen to be “efficient”, meaning

that it achieves what it sets out to achieve.

Education is therefore suitable if the aim in this phase following deregistration is to explore learning styles and adopt approaches to reduce trauma and gradually recultivate a love of learning.

This is very common practice for home educating families on deregistration, a practice that many find beneficial.

The ability to explore, experiment with and discover a range of learning styles, approaches and interests is vital in parents’ ensuring their child’s education is truly suitable.

Any plans that parents may start with are extremely likely to change. Indeed, many would consider should change, n order to ensure a child receives a suitable education.

And this provides an innate contradiction in the expectation to give future plans if required to adhere to them.

• Give plans and adhere to them because you said you would even if you find they are not suitable, means that the education is not truly suitable.
• Give plans and do not adhere to them because you find they are not helpful in providing a suitable education, and therefore the education could be considered not to be “efficient” (i.e. it did not achieve what it set out to) and therefore be considered not suitable.

So, the risk would be of parents having to provide an education that appeared suitable to the LA, rather than one that was truly suitable to the child.

That is the danger of creating hoops for parents and families to jump through, of “raising the bar higher” to quote Kier Starmer.

The danger is that those hoops and bars become obstacles to a child receiving a suitable education,

That instead they risk creating or resulting in situations with the appearance of a suitable education, Which could include a child being kept on a school roll or forced to attend school when that does not meet their needs