The Welsh Government claim that the reason for the CWS Bill is “safeguarding”, and seek to apply the CNIS (Children Not in School) section of this Westminster Bill to Wales.

The Prime Minister’s comments tell a very different story for the reason for these clauses, of an intention for the use essentially as what could be considered as an attempt social engineering.

Welsh Government are circulating a generic copy and paste letter to any trying to engage with their concerns.
That letter cites three cases of children as an attempt to justify applying the CWS Bill to Wales.

Yet these cases are cited as justification for increased powers against all EHE children, not for resources to ensure that existing powers can be targeted and used appropriately where truly needed.

All three cases sited were known to services who failed to use existing powers appropriately to safeguard them. All known to social services.  

“Safeguarding” is not a magic word.

It is not a magic “get-out-of-jail-free-card”, so that if it is associated or conflated with something then then it’s automatically going to do that.

It is not a magic “get-out-of-jail-free-card”, so that if it associated or conflated with something then one has to assume there is a need for those measures.

It is not a word that should be used to apply emotional blackmail against those who wisely pause to question and evaluate if measures would be effective or necessary?

It should not be used to apply pressure, in a “Don’t you want to safeguard children then?” if dare to take the opportunity and time to reflect on the wisdom of measures that are claimed to “safeguard”. Or indeed if such measures would make matters worse and have the unintended consequences of putting children in more danger. You can read of the many professional voices attempting to raise concerns that the measures of this Bill would do just that here, here , here, here, here and here

Apologies for reference to these cases here

Moral issues of using these cases

There is the moral point of politicising the deaths of these poor young children. we find this repugnant and do not wish to expose the memories of these children to even more objective discussion than is absolutely necessary to refute the use of their names and lives to justify these measures.

All were known to social services who didn’t use existing powers.

Yes, it is important that case reviews are conducted and lessons learnt.

But what is not acceptable is to present these cases to convey things that are not accurate or representative.

And the repeated lessons in such case reviews is the lack of appropriate use of existing powers, with lack of capacity or experience to use these powers frequently recurring themes.

Kaylea was never home educated or deregistered, she was on a school roll and was shielding at home during lockdown era because of her vulnerability and complex medical needs. Shielding was following official government recommendation at the time; it was a measure the Government had introduced believing it would safeguard those who were vulnerable.

The Child Practice Review said she was known to many professionals and looked at the impact that lockdown had. There were very frequent welfare calls from her school where the family had told the school they were struggling. It was said in court that she had been let down by health and social services.
That is not to deflect any guilt from those responsible for her death, only to note that there were many, many missed opportunities for statutory services to intervene, but existing powers were not used to protect her. It is inaccurate and indefensible to conflate her tragic situation with elective home education. The measures in the CNIS clauses of the CWS Bill that the Senedd seek to apply would have had no impact on this child who was on a school roll.

Likewise, the case of Dylan Seabridge is complex and disputed, but the relevant point in addressing Welsh Government’s use of his name is that he was known to social services, concerns had been expressed to them that were not acted upon.
The failure was again lack of use of existing powers.

“Spreading the net more thinly” would have made it even less likely that time and resources would have been focused on addressing and investigating those concerns.

The government at Westminster have frequently cited the case of poor Sara Shariff as justification for their plans in the CWS Bill.

This bill would not have protected her.

Correct use of existing powers would have.

Known to social services from birth.
concerns of abuse observed and reported. But still allowed to continue.
Existing powers were not used. Multiple failings by multiple agencies.

Deregistration, using existing powers, is a powerful opportunity for engagement with and reconsideration by social services if there are concerns.

But you may say, what about Sara being deregistered from school?

When a child is deregistered, the school must inform the education department, who are then meant to check for red flags with other agencies and inform or involve them if so.

That didn’t happen in the case of this poor child.

On top of the multiple failings by so many other agencies

Existing powers not used correctly.

Deregistration in the case of this poor child, should have given excellent opportunity for intervention.

 If existing powers had been used correctly it would have given opportunity and occasion for those growing red flags to have been noted and acted upon.

It should have been a clear opportunity for appropriately skilled and experienced social services who would be fully informed of the history to be engaged to review and enquire further.

That did not happen.

Not because of lack of powers.

Because existing powers were misused or not used.

What is needed?

What is needed is for those with expertise and experience to have the time and resources to use existing powers to focus on those in need.

The previous Welsh guidance on EHE (2017) facilitated just that.

Under that guidance, when a child is deregistered, the school must notify the LA education department.

Under that guidance, the LA staff were instructed to check other agencies to see if there were any red flags or concerns. If so, engage with them and with the family. If there were concerns that need to see the child, social services would be the appropriately equipped and trained members of staff to do so.

And if there were no concerns raised on checking with other agencies then those families respected, with contact made periodically to ask if needed anything.

Attention focused on the red flags not scattered unnecessarily where there is no need.

That approach, if those powers and that guidance were used correctly, allows agencies to focus time, attention and scare resources on any children and families in unhealthy or concerning situations.

That approach, if used correctly, also allows the development of respectful relationships where loving families feel able to approach and enquire or ask for help if ever needed.

Abusers, when they exist, are masters at hiding in plain sight. The proposed home visit is a meaningless task when children in school are seen 5 days a week for much of the year and abuse so often either not detected or acted on.

Any evidence for the “schools = safety and home = suspicion” premise?

A blanket premise of schools as places of safety and homes as places of suspicion is a political concept that is contradicted by the evidence.

Just note the rates, demonstrated by so much empirical evidence as well as individual accounts, of abuse within and through the school system.

School is not a place of safety for so many children.

For just one of a myriad of potential examples of why, for just one facet of why, see here

“Sexual harassment and sexual violence are routine and every day in schools across England and Wales and take place in the context of a highly sexualised and sexist culture”

“Sexual harassment and sexual violence are at epidemic levels in primary and secondary schools across England and Wales”
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/67918/html/

It would take an extensive separate article to explore the extent and range of dangers that children can face in school environments. But the message is clear – schools are not places of safety for many.

Our intention is not to “school bash” or claim schools have no role of benefits,

But to counter the presumptive soundbite that schools are places of safety,

They are not for many children, and the risks are inevitably present for all children who attend them.

Neither is school the ideal learning environment for so many too.

Not just because of schools not being equipped to deal with ALN/SEND issues,

But because home education provides such a wonderful educational opportunity and experience for children.

Because many children just simply prefer home education, Because home education empowers access to approaches to education that can suit them far better than the option of school.

Obstructing parental ability to safeguard their children.

Parents are safeguarding when they deregister their children.

It is parents who are responsible for safeguarding their children- which includes removing them from any environment where they are not being safeguarded, or where they are not receiving a suitable education.

Indeed, they would be failing in their legal duty to ensure that their child receives a suitable education if they did not.

So any attempts to delay deregistration hinder parents in their safeguarding and legal duties.

Parents are responsible for safeguarding their children.

The state steps in if needed. And already has powers to do so.

Obstructing families’ ability to ask for help if needed.

You don’t make it easier for any families who may be struggling to approach for help and intervention if cultivate a culture of suspicion, a culture of control, or of punitive authoritarian or patronising approaches.

You don’t make it easier for statutory services to focus on children who need help and intervention by intervening in so many lives of those who don’t.

You don’t make correct use of scare taxpayer funded resources by mandatory oversight of normal healthy family life.

You don’t make it easier to find a needle in a haystack by making the haystack bigger.

Please do explore what experts are warning about the damaging impacts of the CWS Bill, just some examples can be found in the links at the start.
Please do engage with the many families who can explain how detrimental this Bill would be to family life and to their children’s wellbeing and education.