If you’re a parent of a child with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) or a home educator, you are likely to have heard of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill currently under scrutiny by the House of Lords. On the surface, it sounds positive—who wouldn’t want wellbeing to be a priority in education? But dig a little deeper, and the bill raises serious concerns for many of our families.
We gave an initial summary of the bill here, but today I want to take a deeper look at its implications and why SEND parents, campaigners, and some education law experts are raising red flags.
A quick summary: What’s this bill about?
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill aims to:
- Promote children’s mental health and wellbeing in schools
- Create a register for children not in school (home educated or otherwise)
- Increase local authority powers to monitor home education
- Encourage more joined-up data sharing between agencies
Sounds reasonable, right? But, of course, the devil is in the details.
The Law as It Stands: Parental Choice, Home Education and SEND
Right now, parents have a legal right to educate their child at home, whether or not the child has additional needs. While families with children in special schools (with EHCPs) must seek local authority (LA) permission to deregister, those whose children are in mainstream can usually home educate with a simple notification to the school.
Under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996, the duty is on parents to ensure their child receives an education “suitable to their age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs.” It doesn’t specify how that education must be delivered, giving flexibility to families who choose non-traditional approaches due to their child’s sensory needs, trauma, or health issues.
The Proposed Changes: Control Shifts to the State
Fundamentally, the CWB Bill is designed to reverse the current framework with sweeping reforms:
- Mandatory registration of all home-educated children
- Local authority powers to monitor the content and delivery of education
- Consent required to remove a child from any school, including mainstream
- Increased data-sharing across public services
- A new ‘unique identifier’ for each child
The burden is no longer on the LA to prove the education is unsuitable; it’s on the parent to prove that it is suitable, a deeply concerning shift. But let’s take a look at exactly how the Bill will impact SEND families.
Impact 1: Stripping Back Parental Authority
The compulsory consent required from the LA to withdraw a child from school is one of the most troubling aspects for SEND families. It could severely impact families who know their child urgently needs to be removed from their school. This may be because of masking poor mental health, bullying, or other school-related trauma and so on. At best, it will cause a delay. At worst, the LA may refuse, but with no offer of support or understanding. Remember, parents often only opt for Elective Home Education (EHE) as a last resort after months of their child’s increasing distress.
Battles for SEND support already show that an individual child’s wellbeing is rarely an LA’s highest priority. This could lead to increased trauma for families, increased tribunal applications for specialist schools or EOTAS and a rise in safeguarding accusations against families simply trying to protect their children. In essence, it allows LAs to refuse home education, handing increased power to the same source that failed to support in place to help them succeed in the first place.
Impact 2: Misunderstanding of SEND Needs in local authorities
Local authorities already struggle with capacity, expertise, and consistency. Many SEND families report poor understanding of complex conditions like autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), pathological demand avoidance (PDA), or trauma-based behaviours, so requiring LAs to judge whether a family’s education provision is “suitable” raises serious concerns.
Who defines what is deemed “suitable”? Will they respect neurodivergent children’s need for flexible, low-demand, sensory-friendly environments? Or will they default to rigid frameworks based on school-like schedules and curriculum?
We already know that local authorities struggle to deliver EHCPs on time. They also struggle to follow very clear guidelines on how to fill them out in a legally compliant way and who qualifies to be assessed for them. Given tribunal figures show LAs fail to make the right decision in almost every case—98.3%—who thinks giving them more control is in the best interests of families? And remember, home education has no statutory definition of what is considered to be “suitable”.
Impact 3: Invasive monitoring and surveillance
The Bill allows local authorities to request home visits and take a parent’s refusal as grounds for legal action. This is especially problematic for children with high anxiety, PDA, or trauma backgrounds who may find such visits extremely distressing. Moreover, the Bill lowers the threshold for criminal liability by enabling prosecution, even where home education is suitable, if it is deemed not “better” than school. Does the government want to see parents of disabled children, possibly vulnerable themselves, facing prison for putting their children’s needs first?
The danger here is that even where the education is suitable, a child’s inability to “perform” under the scrutiny of a stranger may be misinterpreted, with the risk of penalising disability-related behaviours. For example, a child who hides under a table during a visit could be (mis)judged as neglected or undereducated, rather than seen as needing support.
The government should know why the current, inflexible education system doesn’t work for SEND children from the 2023 Lords Education for 11–16-year-olds committee, “Requires improvement: urgent change for 11–16 education“. This report critically examined education in England for secondary pupils, calling for the creation of a more balanced and inclusive education system that better prepares young people for future challenges. If government doesn’t believe in a flexible approach, LAs may decide that it isn’t appropriate for families to offer it as part of home education—even if this is the only way their children can learn.
Families with disabled children are disproportionately investigated under the guise of “safeguarding”. It’s usually as a direct response to a parental complaint or request for support services. Add in these new powers, and you have the perfect weaponised child protection catch-all for local authorities to use as they see fit. With investigations being treated as proof of guilt and councils being given increased powers without requiring proof of neglect or harm, we could see the epidemic of inappropriate safeguarding referrals finally topple the social care system once and for all.
Also read: Act now! Sign and Share the Parliamentary Petition to PROTECT SEND RIGHTS!
Impact 4: Data Sharing and Potential Discrimination
The introduction of a “unique child identifier” and broader data-sharing powers may feel ominous for families who may already be under scrutiny. In theory, this helps track missing children—children who have moved local authorities or been removed from the school roll and are then unable to be tracked. This is undoubtedly a concerning issue when there are safeguarding concerns.
In practice, there are concerns that this will be just another way to entrench bias against families with children who don’t conform to school norms. A system that flags every deviation from a predefined path (missed attendance, home education, school refusal, or behaviour difficulties) could identify these children as “problems” rather than individuals needing support. For example, a child who is selectively mute, or who cannot attend school because of sensory overwhelm, may be recorded as “non-compliant” or “failing to engage.” That label follows them. SEND parents already face intense scrutiny from social care referrals, especially around school avoidance. There are concerns the proposed laws could worsen this by labelling families who resist home visits or dispute LA assessments as “non-compliant.”
Children with EHCPs under the spotlight
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill also introduces specific provisions imposing extra legal restrictions on children with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) or who attend special schools, compared to their mainstream peers. Under Clause 24 of the Bill, parents wanting to start home educating their child with an EHCP (but who doesn’t have an LA-funded EOTAS package) must obtain consent from the local authority if:
- The child is a registered pupil at a special school under arrangements made by a local authority.
- The child is subject to a child protection investigation or plan.
This represents a significant shift from the current framework, where parents can electively home educate their children without needing local authority permission, except in certain circumstances. The Bill stipulates that local authorities must refuse consent if they determine that:
- It would be in the child’s best interests to continue attending school, or
- No suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s education outside of school (in their judgement).
These provisions are detailed in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill:
“Clause 24 of the bill would create a requirement for local authority consent for specific categories of children to be withdrawn from school. This includes children with special educational needs and/or disabilities who attend any special school under arrangements made by a local authority.”
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools’ Bill February 2025
These measures should cause concern because they:
- Erode parental rights by shifting decision-making power from parents to local authorities.
- Disproportionately affect disabled children, potentially constituting unlawful disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
- Undermine trust between families and local authorities, especially given existing challenges in securing appropriate support for children with SEND.
Given that many parents opt for home education not out of preference, but due to inadequate support within the school system, this could see children trapped in school environments that are causing them harm.
Impact 5: Reduced Flexibility in Education
For many families of children with SEN and disabilities, flexibility in how, when, and where education happens isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s essential.
Whether a child is neurodivergent, has a chronic illness, a trauma background, or a multitude of other reasons, the mainstream school model often doesn’t fit. Parents who opt for Elective Home Education (EHE) or other flexible arrangements usually do so after exhausting every school-based option, with the well-being and mental health of their child at stake.
Yet the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill proposes a much more rigid, top-down framework.
Reporting how a child is being educated—and why it’s a problem for children with SEND
Under the bill, all home-educated children would need to be registered with the local authority (LA), and parents must submit information on:
- Methods of education
- Hours of instruction
- Place of education
“The local authority must be satisfied that the education provided is suitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs (if any).”
This might seem fair at first glance. But the definition of “suitable education” isn’t clear, and that’s where it gets tricky for disabled children. Here are some real-life examples of what “flexible education” might mean for a disabled child:
- An autistic child who thrives on short, interest-led learning sessions that avoid written-based tasks and follow their special interests.
- A child with high levels of anxiety or trauma around educational activities, who learns best at their own pace, perhaps with only 1–2 hours of focused engagement per day.
- A child with chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) or another chronic medical condition who learns in bed or through audiobooks, because they can’t follow a set schedule.
- A teen with ADHD who needs active, movement-based learning interspersed with breaks and rest time.
To their families, this is effective, tailored, and child-centred education. But to an LA officer who expects to see a timetable, curriculum plans, or evidence of 25 hours per week, it could look like “insufficient provision.”
Once again, the government has already heard these concerns and more in written evidence submitted to the Education Committee as part of the UK Parliament’s Education Committee inquiry into home education in 2021. One parent highlighted concerns about local authorities’ understanding of home education:
“Problems stem from a lack of respect and trust in home-educating parents, with LAs treating parents with disdain, condescension, and even contempt. LAs require better, standardised training to equip them to treat elective home educators fairly and professionally.”
Another submission emphasised the importance of recognising diverse educational approaches:
“LAs need to be specifically trained within agreed guidance on the philosophies and pedagogies of home education if they are to undertake any quality assurances of home education. Evidence suggests a wide range of pedagogies, approaches and learning styles in addition to the flexibility of achievement in Home Education that are unattainable in school.”
These examples illustrate the wider concerns among home-educating families regarding the recognition, understanding and support of child-led or autonomous educational approaches by local authorities. This discrepancy between what works for the child and what the authority expects creates real risk.
The risk of narrow interpretations
The Bill includes powers to issue School Attendance Orders if they are not satisfied as to the suitability of the education, meaning families could be forced to send children back into environments that have previously caused harm or regression. This could have disproportionate consequences for disabled children’s families. Without statutory guidance that acknowledges and protects the validity of non-traditional educational approaches, especially those rooted in trauma-informed or disability-led models, this Bill could have chilling consequences for those children who need flexible and adaptive teaching.
Why flexibility matters so much in SEND
The SEND Code of Practice 2015 makes clear that education should be person-centred and tailored to the child’s needs. It emphasises the importance of preparing young people for adulthood in a way that reflects their abilities and aspirations. Yet the Bill’s monitoring framework appears to move away from that ethos. The House of Lords Education Committee expressed similar concerns in their 2023 report:
“The current curriculum is too rigid, does not accommodate diverse learning styles, and limits the engagement of many students, especially those with special educational needs.”
— House of Lords Education for 11–16 Year Olds Committee Report, December 2023
What SEND families need is more room to adapt, not more pressure to conform to systems that haven’t worked for their children.
What could happen if this flexibility is lost?
- Children who had finally begun to thrive may regress if forced into inappropriate settings.
- Families who are using therapeutic or creative learning approaches could face prosecution or forced schooling.
- Disabled children could be re-exposed to environments that cause physical and mental health deterioration.
- Parents may find themselves in conflict with authorities, having to face the same fight they had when their child was in school to prove that they know their child best and that the education system, as it currently stands, is harming rather than helping them.
Is There Anything Good in the Bill?
While much of the concern about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has rightly focused on its potential risks, particularly for disabled children and their families, it’s also fair to ask if there are any positives in the proposals.
In theory, yes.
- At its heart, the bill aims to ensure all children are visible to the education system. For children who are off-rolled, missing education, or in unsafe situations, this increased oversight could help prevent harm and ensure support doesn’t fall through the cracks.
- There’s also a positive intention behind improving relationships, sex and health education (RSHE), with a renewed emphasis on wellbeing. Children deserve an education that prepares them for real life, not just exams. Ensuring LAs know who is being home educated could be a helpful step in providing more support for those families, but only if it’s done well, and from a position of genuine respect for the families and their understanding of their child’s needs.
- The bill also suggests that local authorities must “have regard to” the child’s age, ability, aptitude, and special educational needs when assessing educational suitability. That wording is important, as it recognises that not all children learn the same way or at the same pace.
- In principle, a national register and greater accountability could protect vulnerable children from being lost in the system. But it all depends on how it’s done and who defines what “suitable” looks like. For example, on the one hand, the government’s policy summary notes the bill aims to ensure no child falls through gaps between different services, and that families can get help when they need it. This reflects a desire to protect vulnerable children through measures like a national register. But on the other hand, concerns have (rightly) been raised about the implementation of such measures. For example, should new powers enable local authorities to prevent elective homeschooling where there are concerns about potential harm to the child? This underscores the importance of how “suitable education” is defined and assessed.
So, where does this leave us?
The biggest concern from families, legal professionals, and advocacy groups is that this bill risks treating child-centric educational approaches as suspicious, especially those that have had to be adapted because of previous trauma or learning differences.
Instead of offering support and flexibility, the current drafting could lead to:
- Parents being criminalised for choosing the only workable path for their child.
- Local authorities making decisions based on narrow definitions of education.
- Disabled children being forced back into environments that previously harmed them.
There’s a real risk that parents who are doing the best thing for their child will be punished because their approach doesn’t fit a bureaucratic idea of what education should look like. When local authorities are acting as both decision-makers and funders in SEN cases, there is an undeniable conflict of interest, especially where the incentive is cost-saving. Entrenching local authorities’ powers in law without enhanced safeguards makes justice and fairness reliant on the whim of a disgruntled SEN officer with budgets to cut and parents to judge.
And that’s the crux of the issue.
Good policy needs more than good intentions. It needs safeguards, clarity, and training for professionals so they understand the diversity of needs, trauma-informed education, and the realities of disability. It needs to distinguish between off-rolling and elective home education, between neglect and non-conventional learning, and between low attendance and legitimate barriers like illness or sensory overload.
The House of Lords Education Committee has already said the system needs urgent change:
“The current curriculum is too rigid, does not accommodate diverse learning styles, and limits the engagement of many students, especially those with special educational needs.”
— House of Lords Education for 11–16 Year Olds Committee, Dec 2023
Yet this bill seems to double down on rigidity.
Final Thoughts: What families need
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces significant changes that could affect the rights of parents and children, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities. While the Bill aims to safeguard children’s wellbeing, there are legitimate concerns that it may lead to increased state surveillance, reduced parental autonomy, and diminished support for vulnerable children.
If the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is to succeed, it must:
- Recognise disability and trauma-informed approaches as valid.
- Ensure that “suitability” is assessed with expertise in SEND and flexibility in mind.
- Support families, not punish them, when they’re doing what works for their child.
- Include statutory guidance that makes room for diverse educational models, especially those used in the home education and flexi-education communities.
Families don’t need more hoops to jump through. They need understanding, trust, and real support. Because in the end, what matters is whether the child is learning, thriving, and emotionally safe—not whether their timetable ticks someone else’s box.
It’s crucial for parents, educators, and policymakers to engage in open discussions about these proposed changes to ensure that the rights and needs of all children are adequately protected.
Children’s Wellbeing Bill, Commons research briefing
Disabled Children’s Rights are Under Attack.
We’re fighting, but we can’t do it alone: we need your help more than ever.
We’re volunteer-run, but costs are rising. To help us keep going, please consider a one-off or, if it’s possible, a regular donation.
Read more about being a regular donor here.
We use Zeffy to fundraise, which doesn’t charge us a fee, so 100% of your donation reaches us.
Also read:
- What will a Bill for Children’s Wellbeing do for our children with SEND?
- Act now! Sign and Share the Parliamentary Petition to PROTECT SEND RIGHTS!
- WEBINAR RECORDING! The implications for children’s legal rights to EHCPs and EOTAS of the Government’s SEND proposals
- When things go right: Shining a light on SEND Practitioners making a positive impact [Giveaway!]
- From suspicion to support: why the Government’s child protection reforms matter for disabled children
- Have your say on the future of transport for disabled children and young people
- Unison voices major concerns over SEND reform health plans for sick and disabled children out of school in the EOTAS consultation
- Top Tips for the EOTAS & EHCP consultation: Protect your child’s rights to statutory SEND support
- REGISTER NOW! WEBINAR on the Government’s plans to cut EHCP and EOTAS rights. With SNJ & SEND legal charity, SOS!SEN
- Navigating constraints: Why a former PCF chair thinks the current model is missing the mark for families
- Dear Secretary of State for Education, Lucy Powell: an Open Letter from Special Needs Jungle and SEND legal charity SOS!SEN
- Research: Disabled young people define inclusive education as “learning in the place that’s right for them”
- Why every child deserves Portage, wherever they’re born
- Mainstream SEND Funding: A simple explainer, another consultation, and why it really matters
What kind of government is “bold” enough to scrap statutory EHCPs from vulnerable children?May 16, 2025
The SEND reforms in the Schools White Paper reveal rights given, and rights stripped awayFebruary 24, 2026
Don’t miss a thing!
Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.
You can also keep up with us by following our
Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!
SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here
Previously Renata has been at the forefront of successfully changing government policy so interventions are needs-led and no longer diagnosis-led, and creating the world’s first specialist nurse for undiagnosed children at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
She also helped establish and grow the first online support community for families of undiagnosed children and spearheaded the very first undiagnosed children’s awareness day, including producing information videos that were shown in parliament.
She is a regular speaker on TV and at events, is an RSA Fellow and the mother of three children with disabilities, two of whom have complex needs and one of whom also has complex medical needs.
Please share this article!
Discover more from Special Needs Jungle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On 13th July, there are March for Children protests against the bill in cities across the UK. You can find more details on the “Stop the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill” Facebook page (and other FB pages).