This page looks at the amendment for the local authority to “consider where the child lives“ within 15 days of registration [clause 32]. On January 7th 2026 the government tabled amendments to the Children Not In School clauses of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The next stage of the bill in parliament is Report in the Lords which starts on January 14th. Children Not In School is half way through the bill, hence we might expect to reach this on day 3 of 5 Report ie Wednesday January 21st. Regardless of any disagreement or reservations expressed during debate, governments usually win the vote on their own amendments.
Considering The Home At Registration
With this new amendment, the government is now saying that a local authority “must consider where the child lives” within the first 15 days of the child being entered on the Children Not In School register.
As part of this “considering”, the LA may – (it is important that it is “may” not “must”) request a home visit. If the parent refuses a home visit, then that could trigger a formal investigation of the child’s home education, in other words, the School Attendance Order process could be started.
Government Policy Summary Notes January 2026 say “The assessment of the home would be based on whether the environments are conducive to the child receiving a suitable education or where relevant, whether it is conducive to education outside of school being in their best interests. In making this assessment, we would expect local authorities to record any known risks with the home environment or other learning environments that might impact a child receiving a suitable education – this could for example include reports of overcrowding, excessive noise, etc.” [LINK page 89]
My Comments
This turns what is already in the bill on its head. The bill up to till now says the local authority “must consider where the child lives” – and may request request a home visit – ONLY AFTER A FORMAL INVESTIGATION IS UNDERWAY [Wellbeing Bill clause 33 page 70 lines 12 – 22]
The government is not saying that the local authority must visit all new families in the first 15 days. It is difficult to see how this could be achieved anyway with the tens of thousands of families who are already home educating and who will all have a duty to register at exactly the same time as soon as the law comes into force. Nor is it saying that all families must get a visit booked within the first 15 days.
Rather, the amendment as worded seems to be implying that a local authority is able to request a home visit at the start of home education if the LA believes it is necessary. There is a huge variation in the size of local authorities in terms of travel time and also in the numbers of home educated children though, so it is difficult to see how – or whether – the government will fund this new measure.
Of course, a local authority might request visits of everyone in the expectation that many/most would refuse, which would have the twin benefits of not only leaving a manageable number of visits in terms of staff time, but would also allow a formal investigation to be triggered at the LA’s discretion in as many of the refusers’ cases as they wanted, thereby reducing home education numbers.
What Amendments Actually Say
“Clause 32, page 58, line 12, at end insert- “(8) Before the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day on which the local authority registers a child under this section, the local authority – (a) must consider where the child lives, and (b) may request the child’s parent to allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives. (9) If a request under subsection (8)(b) is refused by the person to whom it is made, the local authority must consider that to be a relevant factor in determining whether to serve a preliminary notice under section 436H. (10) Before the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day on which the local authority includes in the register the information mentioned in section 436C(1)(e) in respect of a child, the local authority must consider the settings where the child is being educated that the local authority knows about.”
“Clause 32, page 60, line 3, at end insert- “(la) whether the local authority exercised any of its functions under section 436B(8), (9) or (10), 436H(7A), (7B) or 4361(3) in relation to the child and the outcomes of any consideration of home and education settings or home visits conducted under those provisions;”
Clause 32 is about the Children Not In School register. Clause 33 is about enforcement action via a formal investigation as part of the School Attendance Order process. The Wellbeing Bill already says the authority must consider refusal a relevant factor in deciding whether to serve the actual School Attendance Order, but this new amendment would require the LA to consider refusal at the EARLIER stage of serving a preliminary notice.
“Clause 33, page 69, line 13, at end insert- “(7A) For the purpose of determining whether a preliminary notice must or may be served under this section in respect of a child, the local authority – (a) must consider the settings where the child is being educated that the local authority knows about and where the child lives, and (b) may request the child’s parent on whom the preliminary notice would be served to allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives. (7B) If a request under subsection (7A)(b) is refused by the person to whom it is made, the local authority must consider that to be a relevant factor in determining whether to serve a preliminary notice.”
My Comments
Updated Government Policy Summary Notes for the Bill, January 2026 say “Finding the right balance between points of contact for home educated children (and for families considering home education) while safeguarding family privacy is a delicate matter. Following the Local Children’s Safeguarding Practice Review into the murder of Sara Sharif, we have reflected carefully and concluded that the Bill, as first introduced, did not strike that balance as well as it could do.” [LINK page 97]
There has clearly been a lot of pressure from safeguarding groups for further changes. The tragic case of Sara Sharif has come up time and again while the Bill has been going through parliament. Sara was killed by her father and stepmother in 2023 a few months after being removed from school. In Sara’s case, the home education team in Surrey where Sara lived was unaware of all the safeguarding information on record and did not realise that urgent action was required. More about Sara Sharif here https://edyourself.wordpress.com/2025/06/29/sara-sharif/