This article will be amended as and when further examples of discrimination on grounds of disability are investigated and established.

Disabled children are particularly likely to benefit from home education, be that because of the flexibility that enables families to work around physical needs, the benefits of the deeper emotional connections forged by learning together in a loving nurturing environment, because of the more diverse range of learning and social experiences home education affords, or because alternative pedagogy may be more suitable than traditional school based approaches.

Therefore, children with disabilities are going to be more impacted by any changes or “tougher regulations” in relation to home education.

Children with disabilities are going to be more impacted if governments place obstacles such as “higher bars” for any child to be able to access home education.

But disabled children and children with ALNs, are particularly targeted in a negative way in the CWS Bill – in a way that politicians may not initially be aware of.

For example:

(1) CWS Bill – 436P(7) and (8)

Barrs 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.

But for parents of children with disabilities who have tried to access help by having an IDP, the Bill makes this their only resort to try to advocate for their children when council staff have behaved inappropriately or unwisely or when there is a difference in opinion on what is in the child’s “best interests”.

So discrimination purely on grounds of disability.

* Specialist barrister Steve Broach states – this is * likely unlawful on discrimination grounds , as there is no justification for barring parents of children with SEN from requesting revocation of a SAO.

(2) Clause 30 : Imposes a requirement for LA consent before certain children can be withdrawn from school * see 434A (3)

** Steve Broach also deems this requirement likely unlawful.

The existence of 434A(3) would be likely to have a chilling effect on parent’s willingness to try out a special placement being proposed by a local authority,

because if it turns out to be unsuitable, they cannot simply withdraw.

This is contrary to the desired nature of IDPs.

There is presently no obligation for a parent to send their child to the school named in section i of their IDP, so long as they make alternative suitable arrangements.

Just one of many sources of information of the impact of this Bill on children with ALNs and disabilities can be found here:

Children with disabilities are much more likely to have a Children in Need plan, not because of concerns about parents but purely because of their disabilities, especially if the school environment has been unable to appropriately accommodate for these, especially if the school environment has not been a place where they can thrive.

But Clause

So disabled children will be particularly impacted by other areas of this clause too.

This clause obstructs and quite often would be likely to prevent a child accessing a suitable education for their “age, aptitude and ability including any additional needs they may have”. Reasons why this clause obstructs and prevents children accessing suitable education are explored here and here