The 2023 Welsh Government (WG) guidance created an expectation for Welsh councils to develop policies on their approach to electively home educating (EHE) families, but the former WG did not monitor or oversee the outcomes of this.

In March 2026, the Senedd under the former Welsh Government approved a legislative consent motion for changes in primary legislation at Westminster in the Children Not in School (CNIS) sections of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools (CWS) Bill (now Act) to also apply to Wales.
If applied by the present Welsh Government, those measures would result in markedly increased powers and remits of council staff over home educating families.

However, there has been no evaluation or accountability of whether existing powers under present legislation have been used, understood or applied correctly and lawfully.

Recently published evaluation of the experiences of home educating families in Wales in relation to council conduct and approach to EHE since the publication of the 2023 guidance can be found here, with an overview of findings here:

To parallel that research, this review aims to consider whether there is objective evidence for misuse or misunderstanding of existing powers, roles and remits by councils in Wales, by consideration of information produced by each council, as available in writing in the form of local policies and template documentation such as pro-forma letters, forms, flow charts and other such correspondence or information.

This review aims to inform any forthcoming conversations on consideration of implementation of the CWS Act, if evaluating whether it would be wise to increase the powers and remits of council staff over ordinary families,

particularly in the absence of any external and independent systems of oversight and monitoring of council conduct,

without any independent mechanisms of redress or accountability on how those powers could be used or misused, if applied inappropriately and counterproductively, without any independent means of complaints, appeals, mediation, advocacy or tribunal services for families affected by such actions.

This review is an exercise in constructive engagement and meaningful feedback for all involved, particularly policy developers, politicians and council staff in consideration of the potential of implementing measures within the CWS Act in a way that would impact Welsh home educating families.

The aim is to be non-adversarial, non-confrontational, but rather beneficial and informative.

Thus, references to individual councils are anonymised, to identify existing trends in misunderstanding and inappropriate application of present powers and remits in a positive and constructive way. This will include noting individual anonymised cases of particularly inappropriate or unlawful direction or conduct, but the aim is not to be unhelpfully critical, but rather allow policy developers, politicians and managers some insight into situations they may not otherwise be aware of, situations that particularly stem from the lack of oversight and monitoring of council conduct and practice alongside any misunderstanding of existing lawful duties or individual attempts to overstep lawful remits.

Three main approaches were taken to gather objective documentation and information from Welsh Councils their policies and approach to home educating families.

• Information available about elective home education on the website of each Welsh Council was analysed, and observations collated.

• The relevant department and staff of each Welsh council were emailed directly to request copies of their department policy on elective home education as provided for both home educating families and for schools and other agencies. Email contact addresses were found by searching online including on council websites in addition to using email addresses available from previous contact by home education groups.

•  Freedom of Information Requests were submitted to each Welsh council to ask for copies of template letters, forms and documents used in relation to EHE, especially those used as part of informal enquiries.

Whilst there are 22 councils in Wales, the Isle of Anglesey and Gwynedd have merged their education departments, and therefore are treated as the same council for the purposes of this study.

It was noted in the preliminary study of information available in the public domain referenced above, and found here, that documentation that was marked as departmental policy could only be identified on the websites of 5 out of 21 Welsh councils.

As it could not be guaranteed that those policies were the most up to date versions, or in case these were in the process of being revised and re-drafted, each Welsh council was emailed to request copies of their most up to date policy on EHE, as provided to home educating families, and as provided to schools and other agencies.

• Brief and identical email requests were sent out in March 2026 to each relevant contact available for each Welsh council.
• If there was no response to the first email, a second email was sent 23 days later.
• If there was no response to the first two emails, a third email request was sent 14 days after the second request (37 days after the initial request).
• If there was no response to the third email request, a fourth email request was sent 10 days after the third email request (47 days after the initial request).

Identical freedom of information requests were submitted to each council in Wales in March 2026, stating:

“Please would you kindly provide

1. Copies of each kind of typical and standard letters you use to communicate with home educators, including

a. Those sent to parents on notification of deregistration/ if LA making initial contact with home educators

b. and as part of making informal or formal enquiries regarding educational provision.

2. Copies of any forms you either send to home educators in your area or use within the relevant departments in relation to home education.

These were submitted as freedom of information requests rather than by direct email requests to optimise chances of councils providing meaningful responses within workable timeframes. This also allowed some comparison of Freedom of Information requests versus direct email requests as methods of eliciting information from councils regarding their policy and conduct.

Information contained in each type of source was collated in a range of tables constructed according to key concepts, issues and headings.

In addition to reading each document, to ensure information was collated appropriately, key word searches were undertaken for key terms for each policy document, and the relevant sections of each inserted into the relevant tables.

This allowed ready comparison of policies and documents between each council, including noting where policies of some councils were identical, or nearly identical to certain other policies, and where policies appeared to be more distinct.

Observations can be considered in two main categories.

• Demonstration of variations in transparency and availability of information from Welsh councils on policy and practice in relation to EHE.

• Identification of aspects of misunderstanding or overstepping of existing lawful roles and remits, both in terms of general trends and of specific examples.

One council did not have its own policy and said it relied on the 2023 WG guidance instead.

All other councils had revised their policies in light of the 2023 guidance except one, who provided a guide for parents on EHE where meta data indicated it was written in 2020 (this policy was only obtainable by FOI as directed by council staff).

Some policies were only available as webpages, others as separate PDF documents with only some of these being available in the public domain. This has been analysed in a preliminary study available here. https://wellbeingineducationwales.co.uk/2026/03/12/reliability-of-information-provided-by-welsh-las-on-ehe/

Out of the 21 councils,

5 had a link on their website to their local policy as a separate document that was clearly identifiable as council policy, with a sixth council (who did not respond to email requests for a copy of policy) adding such a link during the study period.

A further 3 councils had information directly on their webpages that was confirmed by the email enquiries to be their policy, without having this as a separate document.

There were several versions of policy that were used by more than one council.

One version was used in an almost carbon-copy manner by three councils,

another two councils used policies that were virtually identical to each other,

and a third variant of council policy was used by another two councils.

Other policies were different in format, for example some being parental guides in a question-and-answer style.

Sections of many policies bore distinct similarities to both of the two main types of policy observed, including in identical phrasing in some sentences that is not found in the 2023 WG guidance.

Other policies were more distinct in content and tone.

Some policies were noted to contain very distinct sections or express rather differing understanding. Whilst occasionally these contained comments that were supportive of home education, often these distinct areas contained significant errors or areas of misunderstandings and overstep. These will all be explored in the relevant areas of the Results section.

The results of this initial phase of the study, were published on the Wellbeing in Education Wales Website in March 2026, and can be found here.

Observations included the marked variation in the amount of information available in the public domain, and the extent of misinformation and/or demonstration of overstepping or misunderstanding of lawful roles and remits within that information, and are discussed further in that report.

Fig.1 Response times to email requests for copy of local policy on EHE

The time taken for councils to respond to enquiries is extremely variable

7 out of 21 (one third of Welsh councils) did not respond to email requests for information by providing a copy of policy.

Of these, in 6 out of the 21 LAs, there was no response or acknowledgement other than auto-response messages.

1 further LA responded to state that it would be necessary to submit a Freedom of Information request to obtain a copy of their policy.

The number of requests needed to elicit a response was also variable.

Fig.2 Number of repeat email requests required to obtain a response of copy of departmental policy.

14 out of 21 councils responded to email requests by providing copies of, or links to their policies,

4 out of 21 councils provided a copy of their policy after 1 email request.

A further two councils responded after a second email request.

8 councils only responded after 3 email requests.

For those who responded, time taken to respond ranged from 1 to 53 days, with a mean response time of 29 days.

The request was purposefully a simple one, requiring only minutes of time to attach or link in a brief return email documents that should be readily available to staff.

These are also documents that one would expect to already be in the public domain.

3.3.3.1 The time taken for councils to respond to enquiries is again shown to be extremely variable.

Fig.3 Response time to FoI requests for copies of standardised template letters, form and communications used by Welsh Councils.

2 councils did not respond to this FoI request at all

(no response after waiting 75 days, with reminders sent during that period).

Of the 19 councils that responded, the time to respond ranged from 4 to 60 days,

with mean response time of 21.2 days.

 This does not include 11 days additional time to access documentation from one LA as one file sent was corrupted and could not be opened.

The legal time frame for response to Freedom of Information requests is 20 working days.

The time taken to establish information from councils, and the variation the amount of information available from councils contrasts sharply with the expectations of councils for provision of information by home educating families when councils request this alongside the timeframes in which councils expect families to provide information to them.

3.3.3.2 The amount of information provided by councils in response to enquiries from members of society is extremely variable, and not necessarily reliable.

Fig. 4 Numbers of template documents provided by councils if responded to FoI request.

The number of documents provided in response to the request ranged from 0 -13 (for those councils who responded).

0 documents were given by a council that stated it did not use templates, despite anecdotal indications from those in area that would suggest otherwise.  

The number of documents counted per council does not include copies of the Welsh Government handbook, or duplicates when the same documents were sent in both Welsh and English.

The types of documents provided was variable, with many being slightly amended versions of the others, and others being fliers that repeated limited information available in other documents. Thus, the number of documents provided does not give an indication of the range of information that is available regarding documentation used by council staff.

It is therefore not possible to produce quantifiable results that include the practice of every Welsh council,

when all information on practice and policy in relation to EHE is not necessarily disclosed by each council,

and when practice does not necessarily match written policy or templates.

WG guidance, states:
Written report following meeting with the home-educating family

4.40 The local authority should prepare a report no later than 10 days after meeting with the family. The report should outline:

whether the provision is suitable or unsuitable

the reasons behind the assessment of that provision
As the WG guidance attempts to portray visits and meetings as the usual way to respond to informal enquiries, it would seem that the same time frame of LAs responding to families within “no later than 10 days after meeting” would be expected to also apply when the family have responded to informal enquiries by submitting a written response instead.

So, the former WG created a (non-statutory) duty for councils to respond to home educating families within a given time frame. (There is no such expectation or perceived duty for councils in England under the DfE guidance on EHE).

This created duty highlights three key issues

• It appears that the general experience of home educators in Wales is that councils do not follow this section of the guidance. Research exploring this will be published here shortly.

• The dichotomy between expecting parents to respond within tight time frames without lawful basis when councils do not adhere to their own time frames.

• The potential reasons why councils do not adhere to such time frames. Councils may not adhere to WG’s expected timeframes and manner of response to home educators’ replies to informal enquiries if such expectations and approach is unnecessarily resource heavy. If the expected manner of response of councils relates to fulfilling a duty that councils not even have a lawful basis for, then it would be even more inappropriate to have such timeframes to work within.

It would appear common courtesy and reassurance to confirm that any documentation or information sent by home educating families has been received, and this is an extremely swift thing for staff to do.

However, as it is not the role for council staff to approve or give permission for home education, there is no need for a formal response or “report” when the child is not under their remit of being CME. There is presently no lawful duty to monitor or inspect families’ educational provision, homes or lifestyles, yet again we see council conduct, encouraged by the previous WG as if there were, beyond the realm of lawful roles and remits.
The only requirement for a response from the council is to engage with the family if  it appears the child is missing education. The default setting is home education is sufficient unless considered otherwise.

When it is known that the child is EHE and not CME, including by consideration of any information the family have provided, then it would be courtesy for the council to swiftly and simply respond by confirming that the child is not considered to be CME, but no other evaluation or report is necessary. The production of unnecessary “reports” evaluating normal family life takes time, resources and energy away from councils’ capacity to provide for children with known needs, however they are educated.

If families are asked to confirm that their children are home educated, and provide information to confirm this, an appropriate response from the council would be to immediately acknowledge receipt of the email/letter and inform the parent that if there were any questions or concerns, the council would be in contact within 15 days.

This would be the most appropriate response as the remit is not to approve educational provision, or monitor home educating families, but simply to identify children who are missing education and not home educated. It is also a very cost effective and efficient approach.
This is an approach generally taken by at least one council in Wales, although that is not reflected in documentation provided, and for that council the lack of timeframe in which parents would be informed if there were concerns can cause unnecessary uncertainly and stress for families.

The combined observations of the readiness of provision of information via both email and FoI requests stands in marked contrast to expectations of councils of how members of how home educating families “should” respond to enquiries from councils.

For example,

Evaluation of the templates and policies obtained revealed that a number of Welsh councils expect families to respond to even informal enquiries within 15 working days (some even saying 15 days).

When stated, this is often framed or phrased in a way that conveys the impression that adherence to such timescales is a requirement.

Such expectations by councils of responses from families within this form of timeframe is not only clearly inconsistent with their own practice, but is also without lawful basis.

The timeframe of 15 working days only applies in relation to instigation of legal proceedings under s.437(1) of the Education Act. These are measures that should only be taken against a very small minority of home educators (UK national average being issued regarding 2.3% of home educated children, as demonstrated in this research study by Educational Freedom, although the Welsh national average is remarkably higher at 4.3% with potential reasons for this explored in that research article).

https://educationalfreedom.org.uk/home-education-data-and-our-findings-las-still-abusing-their-powers/

https://educationalfreedom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/EHE-stats-2025-Wales-1.pdf

S.437 of the Education Act, which refers to commencement of legal proceedings, gives the time period as “no less than 15 days”.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/437

This is to say that councils should give families at least 15 days to comply with formal legal enquiries, not to say that information has to be obtained within that period.

In other words, 15 days is a direction from the UK government to ensure councils allow families sufficient time to respond. 15 days should be the minimum time councils allow for families to respond to formal enquiries, not the maximum.

The spirit of the law here therefore is to protect families, to convey that if formal enquiries are commenced, councils should ensure that families have sufficient time to respond meaningfully, rather than the time frames be used as a punitive punishment or imposition.

However, council policies and documentation frequently convey 15 days as the maximum time they give families to respond to the instigation of legal proceedings, stating that information must be provided within 15 days.
And council policies frequently state timeframes within which they expect information to be provided for informal enquiries, sometimes giving 15 days for response to these too.

The imposition of restrictive timeframes on families to respond to informal enquiries is not only without lawful basis, as well as inconsistent with the council staff’s own practice for their own response times to enquiries.

The expectation of families to adhere to restrictive time frames when council staff do not is also inappropriate given the paid role of council staff. Council staff are paid to conduct duties such as engaging with home educating families, including answering questions and queries. Families who are asked to provide information in response to informal enquiries are obviously not paid to respond to enquiries and have to find time alongside their commitments of raising and educating their children to do so

The findings and observations here provide an illustration of a potentially inappropriate perspective of “balance of power” regarding roles and responsibilities of families and council staff.

The findings demonstrate discrepancies between how families are expected to “behave” and practice by council staff towards them, where time frames, for whatever reason, are not treated with the same rigidity or rigour.

This is not to highlight problems with time frames to solve those. It is highlighting the issue of lack of accountability for council conduct, as part of questioning the safety or appropriateness of considering increasing powers and remits, especially without external or independent accountability, oversight, complaints or appeals,

• Not all councils responded to requests for provision of their policy and/or routinely used template letters and forms.

It should be noted that these requests were short, reasonable, polite and for information that should be either already have been available in the public domain or standardised templates that are used to communicate with members of society and therefore not private documentation. Thus there should not have been any issues with accessibility to this information in terms of what was being requested or how it was requested.

• We have no way of establishing how complete the responses to either the email or the FoI requests were.
  There is no way of knowing if there are templates, forms or additional policies that have not been disclosed.

For example, we have had sight, from a different source, of a policy document for schools produced by one of the councils that failed to respond to the request to provide their policy documents. That policy document for schools demonstrated clearly stated intentions and plans to reduce the numbers of EHE children in that area, especially according to families’ philosophical reasons for home educating that the council did not agree with. There is no way of knowing how many other such documents have not been disclosed by other councils.

In terms of the information provided in response to FoI requests, some councils provided templates on certain issues where others did not. We do not know whether this is because some councils do not hold such templates or whether these were not disclosed.

• We only have what is documented in writing in terms of policy and stated conduct.

Written policy does not necessarily correlate to conduct.

Distinct differences were demonstrated between what was observed as policy and approach in the written documentation evaluated in this study, compared to data collating council conduct and approach as experienced by home educators, which was recorded and evaluated in our 2026 review of home educators’ experiences of council conduct and policy.

That full report of home educators’ experiences of council conduct and policy is available here, with a summary of findings available here.

The main issue being explored in this review is not whether or not councils should have existing lawful duties, powers or remits of councils in relation to home education are appropriate or sufficient, or whether extension of these powers, roles and remits is required.
Those are separate conversations and discussions, ones that require evaluation of the merits or harm of each potential measure.

The issue being addressed here is how councils handle existing lawful remits and powers.  

The aim of the review is part of evaluation of whether Welsh councils handle existing lawful remits respectfully or whether there is evidence of overstepping, misuse, misunderstanding, or inappropriate or unlawful approaches to home educating families.

Wellbeing in Education Wales has already undertaken a survey to give the reader a snapshot of the experiences of home educators in Wales in relation to this, which can be found here, with a summary of the findings here. LINK
This present review considers the approach of councils from what is contained in written documentation, such as local council policies and template letters, forms or flowcharts used by council staff.

This is to form part of an opening conversation on whether it is appropriate to consider increasing powers and remits of councils and their staff if existing powers and remits are observed to be frequently miscommunicated, misunderstood or misused.

• The Welsh Government’s guidance on CME confirms this:

“7.35: There is no legal framework for the LEA to regularly monitor provision of home education, nor an automatic right of entry into the parental home to check the standard of education the child or young person is receiving”. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2020-09/statutory-guidance-help-prevent-children-young-people-missing-education.pdf
 

• The English guidance on EHE is based on the same primary legislation and confirms this, for example “5.1: Your local authority has no formal powers or duty to monitor the provision of education at home”. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ca21e22e5274a77d9d26feb/EHE_guidance_for_parentsafterconsultationv2.2.pdf

• The 2023 Welsh Government guidance on EHE does not use the term “monitor” or “monitoring” in relation to council’s approach to home educating families.

The lawful duty of councils is simply to identify children who are not in receipt of a suitable education (this will be explored more fully in the next section), but not to monitor the provision of those that are home educated.

Despite it being established that there is no lawful remit to monitor home educating families in Wales,
each Welsh council policy invariable mistakenly claims there a duty or requirement to for them to monitor the lives, education and choices of home educating families.  

where documentation was available to analyse

14 of the councils that used the explicit term “monitor” or “monitoring” in relation to their perceived role towards home educating families had separate paragraphs in their policies designated to this concept, where the term “monitor” or “monitoring” was used in the title to those paragraphs.

Those paragraphs within each council policy frequently immediately (within the first sentence or two) link the concept of “monitoring” home educating families to home visits that the council “will” undertake,

And then usually then immediately and directly (within a sentence or two) connect the outcome of the visits they state “will” happen to the threat of legal proceedings leading to school attendance orders being taken against the families in question if the council is not “satisfied”.

A common example of this is:
“Monitoring arrangements.

As indicated in section * the local authority will undertake at least annual monitoring visits to children who are electively home educated. If it appears that parents are not providing a suitable education the local authority has powers under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996 to intervene. This section states that: ‘If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education.’”.

An example from correspondence to be used with newly home educating families by one council includes:

“I am not sure how much information has been shared with you about home education. The local authority has two roles: to monitor home education and offer support where needed”

(Neither of those are actual legal duties, but this is the understanding of their job remits and purposes held by the council staff corresponding in such a way)

Each council bases its approach to home educators on this false understanding of their lawful role, attempting to therefore enforce compliance with oversight onto families without lawful basis for doing so, and using threats of legal action against families if do not comply with their attempts to do so.

The perceived “duty to monitor” home educating families can also be explicitly stated in communications by various Welsh councils with these families

Some use terms such as “annual assessment”, or “regular enquiries with parents who are providing EHE”.

Terms such as “annual review” are very commonly used, including the concept of an “annual review being due” by a certain date.

Other ways that monitoring is referred to without using the term includes: “To arrange the next year’s discussion where you will again be required to provide evidence”, or “be in touch to arrange the next annual visit”, with some councils having templates for council staff to complete with titles such as “annual review report” or “annual visit report”.

The 2023 WG guidance

 does not use the terms “monitor” or “monitoring” in relation to council’s remit and powers in relation to home education in its 2023 guidance, and so most Welsh councils therefore go beyond the WG guidance on this point
However, the WG guidance on EHE does appear to be a key source of confusion for councils on this concept, in strongly implying, without legal basis to enforce the opinions,  that councils “should” take various steps that would correlate with monitoring actions.

Fig. 5  overview of problems with WG guidance

It was clarified to the former WG in 2019 by a report by David Wolfe KC that the use of the term “should” in its proposed guidance in relation to home visits, meetings and other areas of guidance was incorrect.
https://familiesfirst.wales/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Home_Education_Welsh_Draft_Guidance_Wolfe_2019.pdf

Amongst other points, that report clarified:

• That the use of the word “should” went too far in various aspects of the guidance, such as in relation to visits and meetings, disclosing reasons for deregistration,

as it suggests children and parents are under some form of obligation when they are not.

• That the power to ask, does not require local authorities to ask, let alone require parents to answer.
• That “the question of whether the child sees the local authority in relation to just the question of home education is entirely a matter for the child’s parents and (for an older child) the child. This is not a question of “best interests”, and it is entirely inappropriate for the Guidance to suggest that such a threshold or test applies”.
• That “Unless there is positive evidence that the education is not suitable, then the local authority could not reach a rational and therefore lawful conclusion to

that effect. There is certainly no proper basis to create a presumption that

the education is not suitable unless the local authority has seen the child in

question, let alone provide that the local authority should only “exceptionally” depart from such a conclusion”

• That the guidance is unlawful “in suggesting that the local authority has

any role in questioning the parental choice to home educate in circumstances where that education is agreed suitable”.

• That the guidance is “unlawful in suggesting some form of hierarchy or presumption in favour of education at schools and against home education, when the law (and Education Act 1996 section 7 in particular) is entirely agnostic as between the two: they are equal in the eyes of the law with the only issue for each being whether the education being provided is suitable”.
  • Including the comment that “there is (I assume) no equivalent guidance suggesting that local authorities should ask children at school whether they would like to be educated in a different way and then challenging parents on that basis”.

Despite the conclusion of this KC report that

“Overall, if the matters set out above are adopted in the final guidance following consultation, then that final guidance will mis-state or misunderstand the

law and so be unlawful (and/or leads to illegality by local authorities acting in

the light of it)”,

none of the elements listed above were addressed by the former WG, and each has persisted in the guidance as published.

In 2021, an extensive legal rebuttal of the former Children’s Commissioner for Wales’ use of the UNCRC in relation to home education, including critiquing claims of requirements for measures over home educating families, was delivered to the then Welsh Education Minister, alongside every member of the Senedd.
https://familiesfirst.wales/letter/submission/

However, there was no response from the former WG to that rebuttal, the then Education Minister declined to meet with those submitting the rebuttal.

A legal challenge by the charity Education Otherwise in 2023 resulted in a last minute minor changing in wording of one small section of the guidance, with the Welsh Government having to clarify elsewhere that visits and meetings are not a mandatory requirement of home education. However, the wording of the guidance, and of the related supplementary materials, remain in their present form, with implications that will be explored in this report.

When the 2023 was published, home educators sought to provide feedback to WG and councils regarding these, including providing an annotated version with suggested amendments, revisions and rephrasing, which can be found here. However, the former WG did not respond to this work and the attempt at engagement, other than to acknowledge receipt.

https://wellbeingineducationwales.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ehe-guidance-amended-by-home-educators-changes-tracked-july-2023.pdf

Not only did the former Welsh Government persist in publishing its guidance despite those legal warnings, but it persistently and incorrectly has given it the designation of “statutory”.

However, it is extremely misleading of the previous WG to term the 2023 guidance “statutory”.

There are no new statutory elements in this guidance compared to the previous WG “non-statutory guidance”, as there had been no changes to primary legislation.

All the newly introduced elements to the 2023 guidance, are non-statutory, without legal basis to enforce, demand or impose these.

This review identifies that these are the areas relating to particular confusion, misunderstanding or misuse of council powers and remits, as will be explored in each section.

So, the previous Welsh Government set up a situation where they sought to encourage councils to act measures without lawful remit as if these were lawful duties to enforce.

Fig. 6 Problems with the former WG terming guidance “statutory”

For example:

“Section ** Continuous Monitoring

The monitoring arrangements set out in this section reflect the Welsh Government’s expectations as outlined in the Statutory Guidance (2025), which emphasises the importance of regular contact, assessment of evidence of learning, and constructive engagement with parents”.

Note how the 2023 WG guidance on EHE is repeatedly and mistakenly referred to as “statutory”, even sometimes giving the misleading term “statutory” a capital “S” to denote status.

The problems with the 2023 WG guidance were compounded further by the former WG’s provision of supplementary materials that appear to be based on earlier drafts of the guidance and therefore do not reflect the finalised form or the legal position.

These supplementary materials have not been published in the public domain. Home Ed Cymru, on obtaining and analysing copies of these “supplementary materials” provided extensive feedback to councils and to the former WG on the errors and misleading statements and directions in these templates and flowcharts.

Whilst the problems with these materials are too expensive to explore here, this feedback exploring these can be read here.

https://wellbeingineducationwales.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/letter-to-las-in-wales-re-wg-ehe-supplementary-materials-feb-2024-from-home-ed-cymru.pdf

 The only response from the previous WG to this concerning feedback that highlighting errors that could cause council staff to act unlawfully if following the materials as written, was that councils do not have to use them if they do not wish to.
 There was no attempt by the former WG to correct the errors or convey these to the councils that WG had provided these materials to.

As far as can be discerned, no councils that had originally used these supplementary materials, either as written or as a basis for versions of them, responded to the submitted feedback to amend their materials and correct the errors.

This further highlights the issues of lack of accountability for WG and council conduct in relation to EHE families in Wales, and is of key relevance to this study.

These WG supplementary materials encourage attempts of councils to monitor home educating families, as seen, for example in Annex 6, their template “Annual EHE discussion letter”.

https://wellbeingineducationwales.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/EHE-Supplementary-Materials-Final-ENG-2023-11-06-4.pdf Bear in mind this letter is intended to be sent to families where it has already been established that the child/children are EHE and not under the council’s remit of being CME. Note also the lack of alternative options of how to respond to such enquiries.

“In line with Welsh Government guidance, the Local Authority is required to review your education plan initially within 8 – 12 weeks and then on at least an annual basis”.

 Whilst the WG guidance encourages at least annual contact, there is no suggestion within the guidance, nor is there a requirement, to “review educational plans initially within 8-12 weeks. This may be a personal aim of given council staff, but it is very misleading to claim this is a “requirement”, let alone imply it is a requirement that in some way originates from the Government.  

“The 2025 statutory guidance sets out the Welsh Government’s expectations in relation to the role of the local authority, monitoring arrangements, parental engagement, and the principles underlying the assessment of the suitability of education provided at home.   

“The local authority has two roles: to monitor home education and offer support where needed”.

Generally, it is the education provided by home educating families that councils seek to monitor (without lawful basis).
Template forms used by councils for either council staff, families or EHE children and young people to complete are mainly focused on details relating to education, but not exclusively so, especially the forms for children and young people to complete, which also often ask questions such as whether or not they are enjoying home education.

Forms and templates can make it clear that it is not just a screen to see “if it appears” a child is not in receipt of suitable education, but rather more of an inspection.

For example, as seen in template forms for council staff to complete after a home visit,

“Are books /other evidence of learning available for scrutiny”.

A different council provided a template form for staff to use after home visits, wanting staff and parents to give “scores” about each child’s perceived strengths and “weaknesses”, something which is the antithesis of many approaches to home education.

Fig 7 : example of judgements made about home environments by council staff conducting home visits, demonstrating school-like concepts of evaluating learning environments.

However, some appear to consider they have a duty to monitor safeguarding and wellbeing and see visits and meetings as part of this perceived duty.

For example:

The local authority has monitoring and welfare responsibilities under legislation

Which, in this particular council’s policy, is ironically preceded with the statement

The local authority believes in positive relationships and mutual respect with families and services working with children.

The prospect  of developing “positive relationships” and “mutual respect with families” is pretty poor when the “services working with children” not only openly misquote the law, but beyond this try to act outside of it by attempting to not only mislead families about lawful duties but as a council act outside of it.

That policy continues by clarifying their intention to monitor families:
Therefore, the local authority are sure parents will understand that it will be necessary, as part of their general duty, to make contact with parents and their child at least once a year to evaluate the child’s progress and welfare

The section of legislation usually used to justify interactions with home educating families is the Education Act of 1996.

It is worth noting that, when that act was being drafted and progressed through Parliament at Westminster, prior to devolution, home educators were assured that the sections now usually cited in reference to home education, s.436(A) and s.437, would only apply to cases of educational neglect for children who are missing education (CME), and not to families who are electively home educating (EHE).

Under the Education Act of 1996, the lawful duty of the council is to

identify children who are CME, according to s.436A,

and to enquire further under s.437(1) “if it appears” this is the case to then satisfy themselves that a child is receiving suitable education.

The concept of the council being “satisfied” is therefore related to a reactive not proactive duty, only “if it appears” a child is not receiving education, under s.437(1) and not under s.436(A).

To identify those who are CME, it has become practice to make informal enquires of home educating families by citing s.436A, to ask families for information to confirm that the child is EHE and not CME.
Under existing legislation, if a child is EHE and not CME, they are not under the remit of the council. The council has discharged its duty regarding the education of that child by confirming they are not under their remit of being a child missing education, with the responsibility for education continuing to fully lie with the parent.

There is, however, nothing in legislation to prevent a council repeating informal enquiries about children even though it is already known that they are not under their remit of being CME.

As under GDPR it is often acceptable to ensure that records are up to date on an annual basis, it has become practice to consider it would not be inconsistent with this to annually ask if a child is still home educated or not, to confirm if any records the council holds are up to date or not.

However, this has morphed into councils using any such occasion to not only check if their records are correct, to not even just repeating informal enquiries as per their initial contact, but to move further to asking for even further information about educational provision, including requiring information about concepts such as “progress” since the last enquiry they made.

This is clearly monitoring home education families and their provision.

As well monitoring being an overstep of lawful remits, it is also a considerable waste of council resources to repeat enquiries when it is already established that a child is not under the council’s remit.

Only one Welsh council policy suggests “monitoring” to be potentially optional, but even in this case it continues to do so in terms that could be considered rather ominous and could readily be read as having a somewhat threatening tone.

“If you do not want the LA to be involved in monitoring the education you are providing for your child at home, you will be asked to confirm this in writing. However, if at any time, the LA considers that a child’s safety or well-being is at risk or that a child is not receiving suitable full-time education, then appropriate action will be taken”,

with the policy then immediately describing instigation of legal proceedings against families.

Fig. 8  Approach to monitoring of EHE families is coercive ????

Such association of not agreeing to or “complying” with monitoring with the concept of commencement of legal proceedings is also frequently seen in relation to communications about “home visits”, a topic that will be explored in subsequent section.

This association of compliance with duties that do not have a lawful basis and the potential of legal proceedings can create a somewhat threatening or potentially coercive effect by coupling not agreeing to “meetings/home visits”, or not agreeing to being monitored, with negative outcomes and “action” against the family.

This can create the risk of using fear of potential repercussions to cause home educating families, especially those who are new to home education, to “comply” with measures, including home visits or meetings they would not voluntarily choose to have.

This pressure towards compliance with duties that do not have a lawful basis may well be an intended goal, given the frequency with which such a tone can be used in reference to meetings in most council policies,

However, as will be seen in the next section, home visits and meetings are very often arranged with the families being told the date and time that has been planned by the council and without indicating that these are optional, that there are other ways in which can communicate without any negative repercussions of taking a perfectly legal step of declining.

The law is quite clear that the responsibility for provision of suitable education, and for the welfare of a child, lies with the parent, not the state, as stated in s.7 of the Education Act 1996.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/7

The UNCRC also explicitly emphasises the central role of parents and families in upholding children’s rights, conveying that the state should be supportive and acknowledging of the primacy of family life, beliefs and practices. Indeed, the UNCRC was written in an attempt to prevent totalitarian states from intruding into family life or imposing their ideologies onto families. Wales has incorporated the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into its domestic law through the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011.

It may surprise the reader to realise that responsibility for provision of a suitable education lies with the parent not the state, but when one considers the considerable financial liability for schools, councils and governments if the law were to deem them to be responsible for ensuring children had a suitable education, the existing situation may appear more obvious. Parents cannot sue a school or council for failings in the school system because it was the parents decision to place the child there, and because even when a child is registered in a school for the provision of education the legal responsibility for ensuing that it is suitable for the child still lies with the parent. Incidentally this a key reason why schools have inspections, to be able to demonstrate suitability of provision not only to the taxpayer who fund schools in the case of state schools, but especially to the parents who are responsible for ensuring their children receive a suitable education.

When proposals for the present WG were presented to the Senedd, the then Education Secretary told the Senedd that “I believe we have a moral duty to ensure every child has a suitable education”.
https://record.assembly.wales/Plenary/4901?fbclid=IwY2xjawSBHlJleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFiY0pocEZwV21uVHRpa1FHc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHrvGhngEDvjuITZ7ly3G5DA0WsxIMOMfb-81og9Fhlch2g9TDXWGOHd4JQdV_aem_l30GBUkyAV67M-iVGzZ-4g#A10000068

However, the terms “I believe” and “moral” were omitted from subsequent correspondence and documentation from the former WG and councils, conveying a “duty to ensure every child has a suitable education” without lawful basis.

Councils invariably demonstrate they hold a mistaken belief that they have the “duty to ensure that all children have a suitable education”.

A council stating that the purpose of their policy on EHE as

“how they (EHE learners) will comply with its (LA) duty to ensure that all learners of statutory school age receive a suitable and efficient  full-time education”.

Another example:

“The reason why we request this contact is because the Council has a legal obligation under Section 436A of the Education Act 1996 to ensure that all learners receive a suitable and efficient education”.

“statutory duty to establish that all learners are receiving a suitable and full-time education”

The local authority has a responsibility to ensure that parents/carers are providing an

“efficient, suitable full-time education

Once your child has been registered as being home educated, an Elective Home Education Officer will contact you to provide support and advice on home education as well as to ensure that your child is being provided with a suitable  and efficient education

The Act places the obligation on local authorities to ensure that home educators are providing an efficient education for their children,

It is also the duty of the local authority to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the child

It is then our duty to make enquiries to establish that a suitable education is provided

As the Local Authority, *** CBC has a duty to ensure that all children receive a suitable education, and as parents educating your child otherwise, you would need to provide information about the education you provide for your children

The supplementary materials produced by the former WG, as referred to above,  propagate this mistaken concept: “The local authority has a legal obligation to ensure that all learners are receiving a suitable and full-time education”.  

Comments and views on the concept of believing that the council has a “duty to ensure” often merge with the mistaken belief that it is council staff who are the legal determiners of suitability.

As seen above, it is the parents who are responsible for ensuring that their children receive a suitable education under S7 of the Education Act 1996, and therefore they must be the determiners of what is suitable or not.
This is not only consistent with primary legislation and the UNCRC, but also with international legislation.
For example, note this clarification in the legal rebuttal what was submitted to the Welsh Government in 2021, when the present EHE guidance was being drafted (a rebuttal that WG did not respond to).

Other international legal texts also have a high regard for the natural family in decision

making about children. Various texts affirm the primacy of parents in directing the personal and educational development of their children. The role of the State is secondary – intervening when parental primacy is inadequate or harmful. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone document of the human rights movement, provides, “[parents] have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” because they “have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child”. States also need to respect the “liberty of parents…to ensure the religious and moral education of their children”;  and respect the rights and duties of the parents to direct the child “in a manner consistent with their evolving capacities”.
https://familiesfirst.wales/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FFiEW_Submission_to_rebutt_CCfW.pdf

Council documentation and policies frequently demonstrate a lack of appreciation of this fundamental position.

For example,

Portrayal of home education as parents “becoming responsible” for their children’s education.

Common references to parents assuming full responsibility or “taking responsibility” for their children’s education

You are taking on responsibility for your child’s education.

Parents who decide to home educate their children must be prepared to assume full responsibility

Assume full responsibility

when making a judgment as to the suitability of education

(in reference to initial informal enquiries).

This misunderstanding appears to stem at least in part from misleading information from the previous Welsh Government including in their guidance on EHE, with the incorrect designation of that guidance as “statutory” exacerbating this confusion.

The Welsh Government have produced statutory guidance for local authorities in

regards to EHE. *****  Council must have regard to that statutory guidance.

That guidance outlines the legal bases by which the local authority is the arbiter of whether the education provided to a child educated at home is suitable.

One can see here a further example of the problems of misleading calling the 2023 WG guidance on EHE “statutory” when all newly introduced aspects of the content are non-statutory and without legal basis.

Moreover, that guidance does not outline or establish a legal basis by which the LA is the arbiter of suitability of education, it simply tries to encourage a process of and approach to monitoring home education without lawful basis, and against the core principle of S7 of the Education Act, which establishes the parent as the ones responsible for ensuring provision of suitable education, and therefore the ones who are to determine what is suitable to provide.

“Yes. Local authorities can ask you for details about your child’s education. You don’t have to give it to them, but without it, they can’t decide if your child is getting a suitable education”

Herein lies a key issue. Councils consider they have to determine the suitability of education, rather than simply screening to see if there is reason to believe a child is subject to educational neglect. Hence the increasing demand for “evidence” to prove suitability. But councils are not the ones responsible for ensuring children have a suitable education. They are the “back up”, a reactionary service, to step in if children are truly missing education.

The 2023 WG is again unhelpful here, in mistakenly portraying the council as the determiner of suitability.
for example:
Written report following meeting with the home-educating family

4.40 The local authority should prepare a report no later than 10 days after meeting with the family. The report should outline:

whether the provision is suitable or unsuitable

the reasons behind the assessment of that provision
with the guidance then providing a long list of criteria of suggested characteristics of a suitable education – issues with those suggested characteristics will be addressed in a later section.

The question that should lawfully ask when making informal enquiries essentially should be, “is there reason to believe this child is not in receipt of a suitable education?”, i.e. is there evidence of educational neglect,

not to be placing council staff in the position of determiners of what is suitable for individual children.

However, it can be seen that councils behave very differently to this.

It is your responsibility to provide examples that clearly demonstrate the suitability of your child’s education provision

Irrespective of how the child’s education is arranged it will be up to the parent to demonstrate to the local authority that a suitable education is being provided

Whilst it has become practice for parents to provide information as evidence to clarify their statement that the child is home educated and not missing education, the Golden Rule of British Justice should apply, namely that parents are innocent of educational neglect unless proven otherwise, not that children are likely to be missing education unless proven otherwise.

Despite this, councils have still gradually progressed into continually expecting parents to prove their innocence by repeating informal enquiries

even when it has already been established that a child is EHE and not CME,

and despite the lack of lawful basis for attempting to monitor EHE.

Councils have developed patterns of behaviour of considering that parents have to repeatedly prove their innocence.

The trend has emerged of council’s considering the criteria for issuing school attendance orders

to not so much be that there is evidence that a child is missing education,

but that the parent has “failed to prove” their innocence.

For example:

School attendance orders apply in cases where a parent of a child of

compulsory school age fails to prove that the child is receiving suitable

education and where the authority believes the child should attend school

There is no such legal duty.

The duty is to establish the identities of children who are CME, not those who are EHE.

EHE children are the responsibility of parents.

For example, one council policy states:

“Local authorities have a duty to identify all children of compulsory school age who are being educated at home

This is a dangerously misleading statement,

not only because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of lawful duties and remits by the council staff employed to enact them,

but also because it risks causing unlawful and damaging data sharing,

including in ways that breach confidentiality, if people believe there is a legal duty for this to occur.

This error and danger have been compounded by misleading concepts promoted in the former WG’s “CME databases” consultation documents of 2024, and subsequent statements by the former Cabinet Secretary for Education.

In those “CME database” consultation documents and subsequent statements by the former Cabinet Secretary for Education, it was mistakenly claimed that CME is the designation for EHE children if the council is not aware that they are home educated.

The term CME relates to the education being received, not to whether or not a child’s name is on a given list with the council.

Children can and do receive excellent and fully suitable education whether or not the council are aware that the children are home educated, and that does not make them CME. The education of children who are identified by the council as being home educated does not somehow become suitable because of being identified or added to a “register” within the council. Having a name on the list does not – or should not – change what education is being received or the suitability of it.

One LA stood in contrast to others in the open misappropriation seen in their documents in labelling home educated children as CME.
“The LA has a duty to keep a register of pupils who are electively home educated. All pupils are also registered on the LA’s Children Missing Education (CME) database until such a time as the LA can be satisfied that a suitable education is in place”. Despite the confusion in consultation documents produced by the previous WG and statements from the former Cabinet Secretary for Education, the documentation from the majority of councils indicates they appear to correctly consider children to be EHE unless this is established to not be the case.

Council policies, documentation, templates, communications and conduct very frequently demonstrate an incorrectly placed expectation of being “satisfied” that education is suitable in the eyes of the council at the level of informal enquiries instead of if the stage of formal enquiries under s.437(1) has been reached.

The term “satisfy” relates to S437 (1), the commencement of legal proceedings against a family “if it appears” a child is not receiving education, where the council may make enquiries to satisfy themselves that that is not the case, i.e. enquiries to establish if the child is under their remit of being a child missing education or not.

It is at this stage that the council needs to be “satisfied”, according to primary legislation.

The wording of the 2023 WG guidance on EHE adds to the confusion for council staff regarding the difference between the steps and sections of the Act.

Conflation of s.436(A) and s.437(1) of the Education Act is incorrect use of primary legislation and inconsistent with case law.

For example, Lord Donaldson’s ruling in Philips v Brown 1980 is often misquoted, as discussed here, but an frequently overlooked aspect of his ruling is that he drew a clear distinction between informal enquiries (presently under S436A of the Education Act 1996) and formal ones.

An excellent and lucid legal opinion providing clarification of the stages through which enquiries should pass before the requirement to be “satisfied can be found here:
https://edyourself.org/ian-dowty-hesfes-legal-talk/

For example, from that legal opinion:
“If Parliament had intended from the outset that the LA had the duty to seek, and a home educator had the obligation to provide, evidence capable of satisfying the LA, then there would have been no need for the 2 separate stages. If the LA were to be empowered to require evidence capable of satisfying it from the outset, the first stage would be redundant. If it is to be given any meaning, as it must, it must be a form of sifting test which only places on the LA the duty, and more importantly only empowers it, to take a general look at the provision being made to see whether further enquiry is necessary. It cannot authorise a requirement, when the LA first considers the educational provision, that the home educator produce evidence capable of satisfying the LA”.

However, examples of conflation of s.436(A) and s.437(1) are found throughout Welsh council documentation and policies, often influenced by the misleading nature of the 2023 WG guidance.

For just a small selection of many examples throughout council documentation for all Welsh councils:

“The Local Authorities has (sic) a duty to be satisfied that every child in their area is receiving suitable education (as stated in Section 437 of the Education Act 1996)”

In an initial contact letter as part of informal enquiries under s.436A.

In order to satisfy itself that the education received at home is suitable, the LA will implement the following procedures: (informal enquiry).

“The LA needs to be satisfied that a child is receiving an effective and suitable education at home, appropriate for the child’s age, ability, aptitude, and any special educational needs.

For a LA to satisfy itself of the suitability of education provided by the parents, the LA should see and communicate with the child”.

Parents will receive a copy of reports compiled as a result of any meetings

within 10 working days.  The report will include whether the provision is

suitable or unsuitable, and the reasons behind the assessment of that

provision.  

Councils are encouraged by WG guidance to ask to see “examples of work” as they term them, although note the comments of David Wolfe KC that the use of the term “should” in such contexts is inappropriate and excessive as connotes a duty or requirement where there is none.

Whilst this study relates to council policy and documentation, it is essential to note the unhelpful and stigmatising nature of the WG guidance on this point.

“4.21 states  In the absence of seeing and communicating with the child, it will be questionable whether the local authority can reasonably assess suitability of education and to know if evidence of the suitability of the education provided by the parent relates to that child. For example, whether the evidence provided can reasonably be said to have been produced by that child or be about that child”

Note, this is not direction on how may wish to approach an isolated individual case where there is cause to believe that parents are providing false information.

This direction from the former WG relates to all home educating children.

The former WG wished for all home educated parents to be treated with the same suspicion of not being trustworthy in terms of information provided.  

This contrasts to the situation in the court of law, of presumption of innocence, where the word of a witness is presumed truthful and correct unless there is reason to believe otherwise.

Occasionally councils are noted to misinterpret case law of Goodred v Portsmouth City 20/?? regarding provision of evidence such as “samples of work”. Several policies refer to this directly and it has also been noted to be quoted in scrutiny committee meetings.
An evaluation of potential misunderstanding and inappropriate application of this case law can be found here.

The case clarifies that there should not be a blanket policy of requesting “samples of work” as standard, that councils may consider asking in individual specific cases if there is considered reason to do so, but that even in those cases families are under no requirement, duty or obligation to provide these. Whilst there were many issues with this case, it also did not evaluate whether or not guidance or local policy were legally compliant or correct, but purely considered whether the council adhered to these in their behaviour. The case clarifies that written responses are an acceptable way of responding to informal enquiries.

However, partly under the misleading influence of non-statutory elements of the 2023 WG guidance and the associated WG-written supplementary materials, some local council policies can create an expectation or create the impression of a requirement of the provision of samples of work, without lawful basis for any consideration that these are some form of “requirement”.

As can be seen in this example from council policy, the concept of provision of “samples of work” has been interconnected with the mistaken belief that councils have a lawful duty to monitor home education, alongside the mistaken belief that they are the determiners of suitability of education.

The range of tone in which “samples of work” or “examples of work” are referred to in council documentation varies between councils and documents, from these being given as one of a list of potential suggestions that the council would like to see or consider, to conveying these as a requirement.

For example,

As part of these meetings, the LA will expect to see examples of learning, to determine the suitability of the education provided. A variety of work, both complete and incomplete to varying standards, can be sought and discussed with the parents and child to learn about the child’s experience of learning. This all reflects learning and progress made by the child

Documentation and policies from some Welsh councils can demonstrate a rather revealing misrepresentation of deregistration as a “request” rather than a legal instruction.
Documentation and policies can also misleading depict deregistration as a process, rather than a legal instruction with immediate effect from the date provided by the parents.

For example, references to parents “asking” to deregister (when no permission is required to deregister from a mainstream school).

Many policies quote the Welsh government guidance in stating

“On no account should parents be encouraged to remove their child from the school register to avoid exclusion or prosecution for failing to ensure that their child has attended school or to improve school performance results”

This is a statement to discourage unlawful “off-rolling” or inappropriate pressure on parents to make decisions about their children’s education against their will.

However, councils often add a phrase that is not in the WG guidance stating

“If legal proceedings are already in process that relate to irregular attendance at school, parents should be advised that removal from the school roll may not prevent the process from continuing”.

This, alongside other comments in various policies, demonstrates an overstep of use of fines and measures for poor school attendance.

Whilst this is of course true in theory, it is essential for councils and schools to reflect on the purpose of such fines.

1. Fines for non-attendance are meant to be a method of reducing non-attendance, to try to increase a child’s attendance at school.

When a child is deregistered, there is now no longer any such aim of increasing school attendance, so the purpose of the fine no longer exists.

• In addition, financial penalties would only reduce the income available to families to support their children’s home education, as policies generally clarify that parents must assume full financial responsibility for the provision of education.

Therefore, fines would be likely to negatively impact a family’s capacity to provide a beneficial education for the child. Therefore the council would not be acting in the child’s best interests to place financial penalties on the family.

• Furthermore, it is the stated aim in a number of council documents, policies and meetings to reduce the numbers of home educated children and young people and for them to attend school instead. If this were a legitimate target and aim, it would be ill-served by fining families for non-attendance at schools they are no longer registered with. It would be a considerable disincentive to try re-registering the child at school, having experienced financial penalties for poor attendance when that provision had previously been found to be unsuitable or inaccessible for the child.

Therefore, it would be very helpful for schools and LAs to reflect on the punitive nature of continuing to issue fines for non-attendance when a child has been deregistered.

If on school roll, parents expected to override children’s experiences, wishes and difficulties (whether these are communicated verbally or non-verbally through behaviour) and ensure full attendance, with fines and legal action if they do not override their children’s voices.

If deregistered, treated with suspicion for potentially not listening to their children’s voice.

Most councils who responded to the requests to provide copies of their policy indicated that they did not have separate policies for schools on EHE. Therefore, it would appear to be beneficial for council policies to contain clear directions for schools regarding deregistration. Anecdotally, parents often report being given false information about deregistration by schools.

However, only 3 policies point out the requirement for schools to update the ‘School 2 School’ website with their Common Transfer File (CTF), with only one council providing the correct code for doing so when a child is deregistered to be electively home educated.
The correct use of CTFs, alongside the “Lost Pupil Database” would largely negate the requirement for a national “register” to determine identities of children.

One Welsh council gives direction to headteachers that would cause them to act unlawfully by, in their annexed form for headteachers entitled “EHE referral form”, which is headed with the statement:

 “Please do not remove pupil from school role until the LA has undertaken further investigations”.

However, under Pupil Registration Regulations Wales 2010 8(1) (d), “when the proprietor has received written notification from the parent that the pupil is receiving education otherwise than at school”, “the name of a pupil of compulsory school age must be deleted from the admission register”.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2010/1954/regulation/8

Failure to comply with PRR Wales 2010 is a criminal offence under s.434(6) Education Act 1996 ,  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/434

the offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine.

Proprietors / Head Teachers who fail to comply with PRR can be prosecuted and fined.

Councils are supposed to hold schools who breach PRR to account, but instead we see the opposite here, of a council instructing schools and headteachers to breach Pupil Registration legislation.

This instruction to headteachers in the area matches with comments made by the deputy director of education for this LA to the council’s scrutiny committee.

Home Ed Cymru had sought to clarify and constructively highlight this error and risk of causing unlawful conduct, by attempting to engage with the council on several occasions, including by providing direct feedback on this local policy to the department that had complied it, by communicating with the scrutiny committee, and by regular feedback and engagement emails sent to local councils in Wales.

However, the error remains uncorrected.

This is a further example of the problem of lack of oversight and scrutiny for council conduct even under existing powers and remits. There is no mechanism in place to ensure that councils correct clearly false information or unlawful directions, even under existing powers and remits.

Interestingly, this openly declared intention and directive to delay deregistration (and to also reduce the numbers of home educated children) is at odds with this council’s own departmental policy, which states:

“The name of the pupil is only removed from the school register when the school has received the written notification from the parent that the pupil is receiving education other than at school”.

This demonstrates the limitations of estimating council conduct by only considering what is in written policy, again demonstrating the case for oversight and monitoring of actual conduct and of statements of intent made by council staff including managers.

A second council has a series of serious mistakes regarding deregistration in their policy. We are aware that home educating families and schools have attempted to point out these errors, but these persist in the council’s policy and documentation.

These errors include mistaken and unlawful instruction to delay or attempt to prevent deregistration.

Again, Pupil Registration Regulations Wales 2010 are very clear that deregistration “must” be enacted on the instruction from a “parent” (singular),

• Until the council have given permission, even for mainstream schools where no permission is required

The policy mistakenly directs schools and families in stating:

“Schools must not remove the child from the school register until confirmation is received from the local authority as this will ensure the parent has had an opportunity to discuss their reasons for choosing EHE with the local authority.  Following communication between the local authority and the parent(s) the school will be informed of the date of the child’s last day on roll, if the child is to be removed from their school register.”.

As previously stated, PRR Wales 2010 is clear on the grounds for deregistration, with no lawful remit to delay deregistration for such purposes. These instructions would cause the headteacher or school to act unlawfully, and place the headteacher at risk of committing a criminal offence if followed.

• Unless both parents have agreed (even if they are estranged or there are safeguarding implications).

Their policy mistakenly states:
“To proceed with deregistration, a parent will need to confirm that they have parental responsibility for the child and that they gave the agreement of all other persons with parental responsibility to deregister the child in order to provide EHE”

Again, Pupil registration regulations Wales 2010 are very clear that deregistration “must” be enacted on the instruction from a “parent” (singular).

If there were any disputes on such issues, these are complex matters for families and if necessary family courts to contemplate, not for schools or councils to unlawfully interfere with for example by preventing a child from accessing home education.  

To delay deregistration until this had been agreed by both parents is not only unlawful, but also a significant safeguarding issue, disempowerment and undermining of parental duty to safeguard their children and protect their wellbeing and education.

• Until the council had had the opportunity to influence parental decision

“Where the child is on roll at a school, the EHE advisor will liaise with schools to ensure the child remains on school register until parents have been provided with guidance and support to explore all educational options”.

Not only would this instruction cause headteachers in the area to commit a criminal offence each time they were followed, but also this is against the clear legal position that it is parents who are the ones responsible for their children’s education and for acting in their child’s best interests.

Moreover, it must be noted that this is not just an encouragement in an isolated case where staff may believe there are safeguarding concerns, this is a blanket instruction to obstruct deregistration and undermine parental duty and authority, as well as children’s rights, for ALL children in the area without cause.

• Unlawfully attempting to delay deregistration if a C&S or CPP are in place.

The policy openly and erroneously states. “Where families who are known to Children’s Service and have a Care and Support plan (C&S) or Care and Support Protection (also known as a Child Protection [CP]) plan, they will be subject to a plan review meeting before parents/school remove the child/ren from the school register. The EHE Advisor will consult with the family’s social worker to ascertain a date for a meeting to take place. This will ensure that any additional risks posed to the child/ren are assessed and factored into the C&S or CP Plan to support the pupil and family”.

Again, it is unlawful to delay enactment of or interfere with the legal instruction to deregister a child, so this again shows a very marked overstep of existing lawful remits and duties.

If there are any legitimate safeguarding concerns, the school are of course already under a duty to engage with social services, and that includes if there are legitimate welfare concerns in relation to the instruction to deregister the school notifying social services who are then able to use existing powers to review the situation and consider appropriateness or not of any further support or intervention from them.

It is of course standard practice for councils, on receiving notification of deregistration of a child from school, to check with social services and the school to see if there are any “red flags” of safeguarding concerns in each individual case, and liaise with the appropriate agencies if so.
This is present standard practice which should be routinely followed under existing powers and remits.

It is one of many ways in which deregistration, when properly approached using existing powers, can be a helpful tool for engaging the correct support or intervention from the correct and experienced agencies if there are legitimate safeguarding or wellbeing concerns.

For context, it must however be appreciated that it is unfortunately not a rare occurrence for inappropriate referrals to be made, for example by schools, to social services purely because a family have deregistered when no referrals have been made or concerns raised prior to this. this if of course inappropriate conduct other than in exceptional circumstances. It would be conduct that would cause unnecessary harm to the wellbeing of the family and be a significant waste of scare tax-payer funded resources that need to be allowed to focus on areas of legitimate need and concern.

Two other councils give misleading statements incorrectly indicating that the instruction to deregister must come from all with parental responsibility.

“Both parents with parental responsibility need to agree to the decision to home educate. Schools should not accept an instruction to deregister if it is clear parents are not in agreement”.

“Upon receipt of the letter from parents (or all parties with parental responsibility) regarding their intention to home educate, the school must offer a meeting to the parents if one hasn’t taken place already”

As an aside, the use of the word “must” here is incorrect, alongside noting that even if it did correctly apply to the “offer” of a pre-deregistration meeting, this Must be conveyed as an offer, not a need.

One council makes a clear error in stating

“It is the responsibility of all agencies to report to the Education Welfare Service where they believe a child or young person appears not to be on roll at a school or is not attending school on a regular basis.”

This error is also repeated in the same council’s CME policy.

In a different council’s policy, the combination of the flowchart in Appendix 2 and the template in Appendix 4 of their policy indicates that it is considered routine to “inform” and share identifying details on every home educated child with not just social services but also “health” without the knowledge or consent of the parents, purely because the family are home educators, and without further explanation of what is meant by such data sharing with “health”.

Whilst it is standard practice for councils, on receiving notification of deregistration of a child from school, to confirm if that child is known to social services and engage where appropriate if so, Home Ed Cymru asked this council for clarification on the concept of data sharing with “health”. However, no response was ever received to this request for clarification.

Ambiguity about confidentiality of access to universal services such as healthcare continues to be a problematic matter for home educators, and Welsh council policies and documentation can contain statements or misleading information for professionals and families alike that risk causing breaches of confidentiality and thus create deterring obstacles to confidence in access to universal services.

Some councils unfortunately cite professionals notifying the council of the identities of home educated children as a way they develop their “registers” of these,

For example:
“Another agency has contact with a child or family who does not attend school and informs the local authority”

This mistakenly encourages and implies that agencies should and need to breach confidentiality to inform the council that a child is home educating.

Such breaches of confidentiality and overstepping of remits can have significant impacts on individual families and on the home educating community.

Further research on the prevalence and damaging impact of inappropriate confidentiality breaching non-consensual data sharing, especially from healthcare sources, on home educating families can be found here.

https://wellbeingineducationwales.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/confidentiality-and-respect-report-march-2024.pdf

Council documentation unfortunately frequently reflects biases towards school like approaches, towards school being the “gold standard” for approaches to education or the “best place” for children.

For example:

“It is the view of  ******* Council that children’s educational needs are best met in school”.

However, we understand and respect it is the parent’s right to home educate their child.

Given the clearly biased and pre-decided opinions expressed here, it is clear that council staff cannot be the ones in the position to make objective decision on what is in an individual child’s best interests.

In addition, the portrayal of home education as if it is parental rights being somehow at odds with children’s needs and education is sadly a common place observation in council and governmental documentation.

“All schools work collaboratively to support parents to encourage their children to  remain in mainstream education”

 The local authority … recognises that EHE can work well for some.  

If, after careful consideration, parents decide to educate at home, the local authority hopes that this proves to be a happy and constructive experience.

This is not the kind of sentiment, degree of “careful consideration” or potentially tentatively expressed “hopes” councils are seen to express about parents deciding to send their children to school.

“Parents will be asked whether they have taken their feelings into consideration and whether they know how the child feels about being taken away from their school and friends” (seen in more than one policy).

This can certainly read as a rather patronising comment, not only in presumption that parents do not take children’s feelings into consideration or know how their child feels, but also that the child is being “taken away” from “their school and friends”.

Note the subtle impact of the use of the possessive pronoun “their” here in relation to the school. The comment risks conveying that children belong in schools, and that they are “taken” away from them, again perpetuating unhealthy themes of rhetoric of home education being about what parents want rather than what children want, need and are entitled to.

It is therefore evident that councils are not in the place to be independent arbitrators of what is in a child’s “best interests”, given clearly stated pre-determined biases.

However, the CWS Act, if implemented, would remove the rights of a range of families to make the choices on what is in their child’s best interests, and instead  expect councils to be fully impartial, independent determiners of this.

Those measures would particularly reduce family rights and capacity to act in their children’s best interests to protect them for children who are disabled, adopted, or have additional learning needs.

Exploration of such profound implications is beyond this review, however it is vital that policy makers, politicians, and all stakeholders, most especially parents have the full range of information available to them, if considering implementation of measures within the CWS Act, including hearing the voices of those with lived experience who would be particularly impacted by the various measures.

Fig. 19 Contradictory attitudes towards home education versus school

Home educated children and young people repeatedly referred to as “pupils”, a term that applies to those who are in school or tutored.

Frequent references to parents “teaching”, “teaching approaches” or what children are “taught”

This concept relatively frequently used in a way that could undermine parental confidence in the family’s ability to home educate, by conveying that this has to be done in more didactic adult-driven school like manner,

For example,

“Do you have the ability to teach your child effectively?

Will you be able to educate your child to the required level if they want to take GCSEs?

“being open and sensitive to individual teaching approaches”
Note this example of an attempt to respecting the diversity of approaches to home education backfires somewhat in the possibly inadvertent slip of use of the term “teaching approaches”. “Teaching” is only one form of approach to education, and one that a considerably proportion of home educators feel is not the most effective or beneficial one.
Frequent references to learning as “work”.

Frequent reference to year groups (eg “year 10” or “year 11”) when these do not apply and are not relevant to home educated children and young people, including separate forms for families according to the year the child would be placed into if attended school.

Frequent assumptions that external examinations, such as GCSEs, if taken are taken in “year 11” age group.

For example:

If your child becomes EHE in their GCSE years, they risk not being able to sit a

WJEC exam and not being prepared for an exam with another board

No council policy was found to state home education as an option post-16, even when other options were listed.
it is possible that this could reflect a mistaken perception that home education ceases once a child is no longer CSA and therefore not subject to attempts at oversight by the council.

Comments on the qualifications for council staff to engage with home educators including

“The EHE Visitor will be a qualified and experienced teacher”

Promotion of the concept of a “broad, balanced relevant differentiated curriculum” or plan for education.

Template forms provided by council staff inevitable frame education according to school-like concepts, principles and outcomes. This is one of the various reasons why home education support groups recommend home educators respond to informal enquiries using their own words in a written response rather than using council prepared forms.

For example, the form provided by one council for parents to complete has questions reflecting a school-centric concept of education, such as

List of subjects taught?

What syllabus is being used for each subject?

How are the subjects being taught?

With this form also expecting the member of council staff to somehow collate, gather or possibly even attribute “scores” for the child’s “strengths and “weaknesses”:

Fig. 20a  Section of form for council staff to complete after a home visit- scores of weaknesses.

And the same form not only viewing the parent as the “tutor”, but also appears to ask if the parent has professional qualifications or not.

Fig. 20b Section of form for council staff to complete after a home visit – “professional qualifications” of parents.

One council states that the “purpose of the policy is how learners who have been electively home educated but are seeking to return to school settings will be supported to do so”.

“Another aspect to take into consideration is the social side of school life, such as contact with other children, joint activities and the stimulus of seeing the work of other children. Parents will need to plan how the child’s social development can be maintained or extended”

The choice of job titles for council staff designated with making enquiries of home educators can often reflect a school-centric concept or bias and/or have potentially somewhat patronising connotations. Such job titles often using terms such as “specialist teacher”, specialist advisor”, “advisor”, “advisory teacher”, “EHE visitor”.

Some councils state that such members of staff that contact EHE families will be a “fully qualified teacher”, as if this is a positive statement.

However, school based practices of concepts of education are often not relevant to home education, and experience in school-based education can potentially promote a more limited appreciation or expectation of how the staff member may consider education “should look”. Home educators who are also qualified teachers often find that they have to unlearn many of the practices or concepts from their training in order to be able to effectively home educate, as the approaches can be so different in many ways.

Biased comments about learning environments, or ones that demonstrate narrow concepts or lack of understanding of home education or the many ways that children can optimally learn of  are particularly concerning given the proposals in the CWS Act to have council staff enter the homes of ordinary home educating families to make pronouncements on their suitability.

For example, in lists of questions that are seemingly geared to discourage families from home educating, comments can include ones such as

Do you have the space to create a quiet working area?

Fig. 21  Screenshot of section of form for council staff to complete after a home visit- demonstrating school-centric judgements of home and learning environment.

Put in place a framework to measure your child’s progress regularly and thoroughly to be able to plan your education provision suitably

Assess your child’s achievement.

Such concept of “measuring progress” can convey a very school centric conceptualisation of education.

Many families make the philosophical choice when home educating to avoid this very concept of “achievement” focus and assessment led or driven “education”, believing it to be counterproductive and detrimental to deeper learning.

Any attempts to enforce outcome driven or achievement focused models of education or measurement of “progress” would be against the rights and freedom of families to choose how they raise and educate their children according to their beliefs and philosophies.
Such approaches to education are well recognised as meaningful ways for children to learn and develop their education and understanding of the world.

Whilst some councils give information about educational options post-16, home education is rarely mentioned as an option. Many home educators continue to do so after the age of 16.

It is interesting to speculate if the lack of consciousness of home education continuing after a child is no longer CSA relates to councils no longer trying to monitor or make enquiries at this age.

Councils commonly make reference to an expectation that families make and provide the council with future plans regarding their home education experience.

There is no requirement for future plans, or for these to be provided from day one.

The 2023 WG guidance acknowledges diversity in approach to education and states,
“4.9 It is to be expected that, in some circumstances, there will be less or no formal planning of learning, in contrast to structured planning in schools”, commenting elsewhere that “opportunities for learning can arise at any time”.  

Indeed, construction of future plans and schemes for intended education runs counter to a wide range of pedagogy commonly used by home educators, especially against child-led self-directed approaches.
Thus, to expect provision of future plans is to discriminate against families’ choices of alternative educational pedagogy, which would not be lawful.

Not only does any expectation or artificial requirement for the provision of future plans demonstrate the lack of understanding of many approaches to home education, it also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the lawful duty of the council.

The council has a duty to establish the identities of children who are not (and have not) been in receipt of a suitable education. This is a reactive duty. Councils have not remit or ability to make judgements on who may or may not be missing education in the future, they have no remit or capacity to determine whether education will or will not be suitable in the future.

“Evidence of how parents plan to educate their child/ren will be required from day one”.

“Parents will need to plan how the child’s social development can be maintained or extended”

give as much detail as possible how you intend to educate your child/ren

“Is there a clear plan in the next year for addressing the next steps in the child’s educational development”
“What evidence of planning have parents shared to demonstrate how they are going to home educate/ are home educating their child?”

(in forms for council staff to complete as part of informal enquiries).

“Contact the parent/carers to request an initial meeting and information about the

education they are providing or are intending to provide and request they complete the Elective Home Education Parent Information form”.

This meeting is designed to offer support to the family, as well as obtain details about the planned education and the pupil’s progress.

Contact the parent/carers to request an initial meeting and information about the education they are providing or are intending to provide and request they complete the Parent Elective Home Education Plan.

“Therefore, when the LA is made aware of a child’s withdrawal from school, the LA will …  invite the parents to meet with an LAO, as a named contact within the LA, to discuss the suitability of their proposed education programme”

“It is good to identify your long-term plans and the ways in which you intend to achieve them”.

“Parents who educate at home, have considerable freedom in planning their child’s education”

“This meeting is designed to offer support to the family, as well as obtain details about the planned education and the pupil’s progress”

“Invite the parents to meet with an EHEA, as a named contact within the LA, to discuss the suitability of their proposed education programme”

“The Basic curriculum for Wales / Curriculum for Wales … can provide a useful guide when planning education for your child if you are home educating them. To guide your planning if home educating your child, the following principles are useful:…. Demonstrate appropriate knowledge and understanding of areas of learning and experience being delivered”
it is unclear if that comment is referring to knowledge of the parents as a way to demonstrate or highlight any considered limitations in their existing knowledge, or of the child. If it refers to parental knowledge, it risks conveying a lack of understanding of the co-learning processes that are frequently so beneficial in home education.

“Basic curriculum for Wales / Curriculum for Wales … can provide a useful guide when planning education for your child if you are home educating them”

“Put in place a framework to measure your child’s progress regularly and thoroughly to be able to plan your education provision suitably”

Some councils frame their enquiries about future plans as expectations of disclosure and discussion of “hopes”.

Provision of future plans are often conveyed as a requirement or expectation in template forms and letters used to communicate or derive information from home educators.

For example:

Template forms for parents and/or children to complete with designated boxes for “future plans”.

“parent proposed EHE plan”

please can you give an indication of the extent to which you intend your child to be engaged in learning activities

Please list the types of equipment, resources and software that you intend to use to support your child’s learning?

A representative from the Elective Home Education Team will contact you within four weeks to find out how you are planning to meet your child’s needs in providing an education. They will suggest an informal meeting at your home to discuss your plans.

Upon receipt of the notification, the Local Authority will acknowledge the

receipt and initiate the process for assessing the suitability of the proposed

education

Education is often portrayed in documentation as being seen to be an adult-led process, as demonstrated in quotes previously.

For example:

When a child is educated at home it is the decision of the parent as to what and how the child learns.

Any requirement for future plans places families at risk of education not being considered “efficient”.

Moreover, education is meant to be “efficient”, meaning that it achieves what it sets out to achieve.

Child focused and child-led learning aims to encourage a child to develop their curiosity and love of learning.

However, if there were a requirement for “future plans” of whatever degree, if a family does not adhere to these, because of following other opportunities instead, including those found to be more appropriate or relevant or those expressed by the “voice of the child”, then that education can be deemed to be inefficient, even if it is suitable in and of itself, and councils then can consider the parent to be failing in their duty to provide education that is both “suitable and efficient”, resulting in risk of legal action if that is followed to its logical conclusion.

So placing any expectation or requirement for future plans not only markedly narrows down the opportunities for child development and education, it also places families at risk.

Council documentation demonstrated common assumptions that external examinations, such as GCSEs, if taken, are taken in year 11.

Council approach to external exams, if given, frequently demonstrated a bias towards WJEC examination, which are generally inaccessible to home educators without specific provision for non-examination assessments.

For example:

If your child becomes EHE in their GCSE years, they risk not being able to sit a

WJEC exam and not being prepared for an exam with another board

(that is a repeat from earlier but needs to be in more than one place as also used in intro).

“If you wish for your child to take GCSE examinations or to re-enter the school system at some later point, then the requirements of the National Curriculum will need to be borne in mind”

It is interesting to see the council here frame the decision to take GCSEs to be the parents rather than the child’s.

The National Curriculum does not “need” to be borne in mind in terms of preparation for GCSEs. There are many ways that excellent educational foundations can be laid that provide a constructive basis for transition or progression to external examinations without the NC or similar approaches.

Parents wishing for their child to undertake WJEC GCSE exams are

encouraged to contact the Education Inclusion Service for advice and

guidance

Examinations must be taken at an approved examination centre, identified by the local authority, to enable home educating families to access WJEC examinations.

This sentence appears in more than one council policy and is somewhat misleading, as implies that

• Only examination centres that have been identified by the local authority “must” be used.
• Implies, when taken in context of the start of this sentence, that examination “must” therefore by WJEC. Many home educators choose to do examinations with boards other than WJEC for a range of reasons, including preference for sitting international GCSEs that do not have non-examination components that are often inaccessible or unsuitable for home educated young people. Home Ed Cymru provided feedback for one such council on this sentence and were told in 2024 that this sentence would be corrected in their policy, however it is still unchanged in 2026.

Improved access to suitable examination centres was the main promise of a “package of support” to accompany introduction of the 2023 guidance. However, accessibility, availability and affordability of examination centres in Wales is extremely variable between different parts of the country. This continues to be a considerable problem, and is part of separate and ongoing research, which will be published in due course.

Research has identified that for home educators considering external examinations, “non-exam assessment (NEA) or anything other than an exam paper considerably increases costs for a subject, and very often makes it impossible. However, most WJEC examinations increasingly involve these”.

https://learnwhatyoulive.substack.com/p/how-many-home-educated-children-take

That research also concluded that “While it’s vitally important to keep in mind that this is and should remain an individual choice, most home educators want their children to have the opportunity to take exams, and they are perfectly able to do well in them when they do – however in some cases the barriers to do so are around access to exam centres; and these fall disproportionately on those on a low income and with additional support needs” .

The availability of exam centres is a topic for separate research that will be published shortly. However, it is worth noting overview observations that where some councils have made some provision for external examinations to be taken via their own exam centres, these are sometimes WJEC only, and can be in a very limited range of subjects (typically English and Maths +/- Science),and not all are able to accommodate either access arrangements or NEA components (with one council anecdotally telling families that their young people would have to forego the 20% of the marks of the subject that related to NEAs).
However, private schools and private examination centres, if and where available, can offer a wider range of examination boards to avoid the issue of NEAs, as well as potentially have the capacity to accommodate access arrangements.

For context, a UK wide survey collecting Summer 2024 experiences for HEQA (Home Education Qualifications Association) included data on the results of 233 Level 2 exam entries (primarily GCSEs) by home educated candidates – and 50% achieved grade 7 or higher.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m9IMX8QcP7O1tnjIBmRKSjgI5kAURRHp/view

Information on how to complain about any issues was found in policies on EHE for only 3 Welsh councils.

Not only is it unclear how concerned home educating families can raise concerns,

But this highlights the complete lack of external complaints or appeals processes.

Likewise, the persistence of errors and misleading communication, despite regular attempts at engagement to explore and address these also highlights the existing problems of lack of accountability or redress.

Only 4 councils mention involvement of home educators in review of their policies.

Three of these policies contain carbon copy sentences stating:

This policy and associated documents will be reviewed every two years to ensure that current legislative requirements are reflected and to see if improvements can be made to further develop efficient and effective working practice. The review will be achieved through the involvement of key stakeholders including home educating parents.

The policy of one council stands in contrast to all other policies in Wales in stating

“***  LA value the views of home elected families – we are currently reviewing our processes and are seeking the involvement of our families to ensure that we are working in the best interests of our children”.

However, the inappropriate use of the possessive “our” in relation to children somewhat offsets the potentially promising wording of that line of policy.

No other policies reference feedback from those that the measures in the policy relate to, namely home educating families.

As with all topics and issues explored in this review of council documentation, the study only reviews what is in writing, rather than actual conduct.

One area that is particularly difficult to evaluate purely by exploring available template documentation is actual conduct, rather than written policy, on commencement of legal action by councils.

Research by the charity Educational Freedom has, for two consecutive years, collated and compared the rates of commencement of legal proceedings against home educating families.

http://www.educationalfreedom.org.uk/home-education-data-and-our-findings-las-still-abusing-their-powers/

The research demonstrates two Welsh LAs in the “top ten” of the worst LAs in the UK, despite the small size of Wales in terms of population (22 LAs) compared to the rest of the UK (some 500 in England).

The average rate of issuing of Notices to Satisfy under s.437(1) of the Education Act were, at 4.3%, nearly twice as high for Wales than the UK average of 2.4%, with the national rate of issuing School Attendance Orders also being higher in Wales (1.5%) than for the UK as a whole (0.9%).

https://educationalfreedom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/EHE-stats-2025-Wales-1.pdf

The justification and merits of School Attendance Orders could not be evaluated, partly because not all councils hold the data on the outcome of the court cases they attend where these are contested, a factor which also raises questions about inability to monitor and reflect on own practice.
Indeed, even the former Cabinet Secretary for Education, when not referring to EHE, has reflected that “local authorities are not as good as they should be at self-evaluation,”

For school attendance orders, the only means of redress or contesting these is for families to allow themselves to be prosecuted by the council, so that they can put their case to a magistrate, who may or may not have experience or training in educational law, alternative pedagogy or home education. this is a process which is costly for families in terms of finances, time, energy, stress levels and also risk of repercussions for home and careers if were to result in a criminal conviction. It is also an inefficient, time consuming and expensive approach for councils.