This page looks at measures for local authorities to prevent or stop a child being home educated if there has been a Child Protection Plan in the past 5 years. On January 7th and 8th 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, so 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.
Background Information Child Protection Plan
If – after conducting formal safeguarding enquiries – a local authority believes there is evidence that a child “is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm” then it must take action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 which usually involves drawing up a Child Protection Plan. There will be a review every few months to look at progress made and to decide if the Plan is still necessary. [Section 47 link]
What The Bill Says Now
Up to this point, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill says that if there are ongoing formal safeguarding enquiries or a current Child Protection Plan then a child can’t be taken out of school for home education unless the local authority agrees that home education is in the child’s “best interests”. [Clause 31 page 54, line 33 onward, “Condition B”]
The Bill also says that where a child is already home educated, an ongoing safeguarding enquiry or a Child Protection Plan will trigger the School Attendance Order process in which the parent will have to convince the LA that home education is in the child’s “best interests”. [Clause 33 page 68, line 24 onward, “Condition B”]
Past 5 Years CP Plan
The government is proposing to EXTEND THIS to historic Child Protection Plans going back 5 years. It would affect whether home education could start AND ALSO whether it could continue. Government Policy Summary Notes January 2026 say “we will set out in statutory guidance that local authorities should conduct a review to consider which children may be better served by being in school. Local authorities will then be able to use the SAO process to require these children to attend a named school” [LINK page 86]
Government Policy Summary Notes also 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]
My Comments
This is a massive shift. There has clearly been a lot of pressure from safeguarding groups for further changes to the Children Not In School clauses of the Wellbeing Bill. The tragic case of Sara Sharif has come up time and again while the Bill has been going through parliament, but the amendments about historic Child Protection Plans make no sense in this context. More about Sara here https://edyourself.wordpress.com/2025/06/29/sara-sharif/
Sara was killed by her father and stepmother in 2023 a few months after being removed from school. She had not been on a Child Protection Plan (formerly known as “on the child protection register”) since she was a baby 10 years earlier although there had been two family court cases by the time she was 3 years old to decide whether she should be taken into care.
Change to Clause 31 Consent Withdrawal From School
Condition B is that a local authority is—
(a) conducting enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989
(duty to investigate) in respect of the child, or
(b) taking action under section 47(8) of that Act to safeguard or
promote the child’s welfare, in a case where the enquiries
mentioned in paragraph (a) have led the local authority to
conclude that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer,
significant harm (within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10)
of that Act); or has taken such action during the period of five years ending with the date on which an application is made under subsection (6). [Page 55]
Change To Clause 33 School Attendance Orders
436H Preliminary notice for school attendance order
(1) A local authority must serve a preliminary notice on a child’s parent
in relation to a child for whom the authority is responsible if it appears
to the authority that—
(a) the child is of compulsory school age, and
(b) either condition A or condition B is met […]
(3) A “preliminary notice” means a notice requiring the child’s parent on
whom the notice is served to satisfy the local authority that—[…]
(b) the child is receiving education that is in their best interests,
where condition B is relied on to serve the notice […]
(5) Condition B is that—
(a) the local authority or another local authority is—
(i) conducting enquiries in respect of the child under
section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (duty to investigate),
or
(ii) taking action under section 47(8) of that Act to
safeguard or promote the child’s welfare, in a case
where the enquiries mentioned in sub-paragraph (i)
have led the local authority to conclude that the child
is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm
(within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10) of that
Act),
“; or has taken such action during the period of 5 years ending with the date on which a preliminary notice is to be served under subsection (1).”
(b) the child is not regularly attending school, and
(c) it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by
regular attendance at school. [Page 68]
436I School attendance orders
… (b) the local authority is no longer conducting enquiries or taking
action in respect of the child as mentioned in section 436H(5)(a),
and
(c) the local authority is not aware of any other enquiries being
made under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 or of any other
action being taken under section 47(8) of that Act , or which has been taken during the period of 5 years ending with the date that the order would be made, in respect of
the child. [Page 70]