The government intends to change the law on home education through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill which is reaching its final stages before becoming law. MPs will consider Lords amendments on March 9th 2026 and the bill will go back to the Lords just before Easter for ping pong.
Timescales
After it becomes law it will take up to a year to sort out all the necessary regulations and guidance before the new home education measures can come into force, so probably 2027 for England. (WALES WILL HAVE DIFFERENT TIMESCALES)
Summary
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill says that in future some parents will need permission to begin home educating or to carry on home educating. The bill also puts forward proposals for compulsory registration of children not in school with parents having to complete a number of steps as soon as their children are registered or find themselves in the School Attendance Order process. When the bill was first introduced in December 2024 these measures only applied to England but Wales was added in March 2025.
Numbering Of Lords Amendments
Numbering of Lords amendments can be tracked here Bill 11th February Lords Amendments and here Explanatory Notes February 12th
Visiting The Child
Up till January 2026 the Wellbeing Bill was saying that a duty to consider where the child lives and requesting to visit the home, would apply during the preliminary notice period for a School Attendance Order ie after the local authority was already not satisfied.
In January 2026, the government amended the bill to say that the local authority must “consider where the child lives” within 15 days of a child going on the register, and will be able to request a home visit.
If the parent refuses a home visit this would be a reason to issue a preliminary notice and begin the School Attendance Order process.
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]
More details are needed on what it is exactly that local authorities are supposed to be checking; the proportion of families they expect would be asked for a visit; what funding will be available for all these visits; and also to reflect on who will actually be carrying out the visits and how much they might know about home education or special educational needs or neurodiversity or school trauma.
There is also the issue of what else might happen during a home visit such as expecting to go through a checklist, or to question children or to see the child’s work.
Local Authority Decides Child’s Best Interests
The bill already said that children subject to a Child Protection Plan or active child protection enquiry (Condition B) may not be removed from school unless the local authority agrees that it is in the child’s best interests.
In January 2026 the government added Child Protection Plan at any time in the past 5 years which will bring many more families within scope.
Additionally for children who are already home educated, the government now says that if there has been a Child Protection Plan in the past 5 years, the local authority will decide whether to start the school attendance order process on the basis that home education is not in the child’s best interests.
A risk averse local authority may default to a school attendance order, this would also reduce home education numbers which we know is the goal in some areas.
The local authority might be satisfied about the proposed home education arrangements yet still consider school to be in the child’s best interests, and therefore consent would be refused. It has the appearance of fairness since it is not a blanket ban but will be decided on a case by case basis.
However, in my experience schools and local authorities tend to start from the position that the best place for a child is in school. Most local authorities would prefer the child to remain attached to a school. An authority might also refuse consent for withdrawal on the grounds that children would miss out on therapies and specialist support when it is the same authority which has made the decision to withhold support if the child is no longer attached to a school.
Concerns include the local authority [LA] deciding “best interests” without considering the trauma for an individual child forced to remain on the school roll (including potential truancy penalties and being regarded as “missing education” if unable to attend); no time limit for the LA to make its decision; the LA not having to justify the decision; the absence of any independent appeal (being able to ask the government if they agree with the local authority is not seen as an independent challenge); 6 month wait to re-apply if refused.
How Might It Go Wrong
The proposed measures would mean that anyone who disagreed with home education or had a personal conflict with the parent could make a safeguarding referral at the point of deregistration, which a risk-averse local authority would feel compelled to follow up with a full-blown investigation. We need proper safeguards set out in regulations to keep this in check and under regular review, otherwise it just looks like a way to cut home education numbers.
- Local authorities could treat all child protection plans the same and a risk-averse negative decision could become the default (“panel said no”)
- Families might have to wait a long time for a decision – it is disturbing that there are no timescales
Reasons For Child Protection Plan
There are many reasons for a Child Protection Plan, not simply the risk from the parent caring for the child for example there could have been a CP Plan because of dangers in school or the wider community (extra-familial harm), or domestic abuse from a parent who is no longer in the family home.
There is also “a default position that assumes parental failings when assessing the needs of disabled children”, see Cerebra https://cerebra.org.uk/download/institutionalising-parent-carer-blame/
Even where the parent is not being blamed, a child protection plan may be put in place to ensure regular multi-agency oversight, because budget cuts mean this is the only available option.
Pilot Scheme Mandatory Meeting
After the bill receives royal assent (currently estimated to be Spring 2026) there will be a period of up to 2 years to draw up regulations for “a pilot scheme” involving up to 30% of local authorities in England and Wales.
In pilot areas, parents will have to have a meeting with the LA before the child’s name can be taken off the school roll for home education. The government added this to the bill in January 2026.
Parents Giving Less Information
Throughout the passage of the Wellbeing Bill, the government was insisting on a great deal of information for initial registration, combined with a duty to report any changes within 15 days, plus the local authority able to start the School Attendance Order process if any information is missed.
As of January 2026 this has been cut down considerably, so that parents and local authorities have less to do.
A VERSION OF THIS PAGE WAS FIRST PUBLISHED ON MY BLOG IN JANUARY 2026