Why the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Raises Serious Concerns for Children With Additional Needs

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has been presented as a major reform to improve safeguarding, strengthen attendance, and enhance support for vulnerable pupils.

However, for families of children with complex additional needs — including those with Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans, disabilities, chronic illnesses, or mental-health challenges — the Bill introduces provisions that could create significant new risks, barriers, and unintended harm.

Based on a detailed review of the Bill, this article highlights the most pressing concerns that parents, practitioners, and policymakers should urgently consider.

1. Loss of the Automatic Right to Home Educate Children Placed in Special Schools

One of the most far-reaching changes is the introduction of a requirement for local authority consent before parents can withdraw certain children from school to home educate.

A child becomes a “relevant child” if they were placed in a special school under local authority arrangements — which applies to the vast majority of children whose EHC plans name a special school.

This means:

• Parents can no longer withdraw their child from a special school if the placement breaks down.

• The same local authority that arranged — and may have failed — the placement becomes the decision-maker.

• Consent must be refused if the authority believes school attendance is in the child’s “best interests” or home education is “unsuitable”.

For children experiencing school-related trauma, anxiety, physical deterioration, or systemic provision failure, this loss of parental autonomy could cause immediate and serious harm.

2. No Exceptions for Medical Needs, Mental Health Crises or Disability-Related Absences

The Bill provides no explicit exemptions for children who are:

• recovering from surgery

• living with chronic fatigue or medical fragility

• attending frequent medical appointments

• experiencing school-induced mental health crises

• unable to tolerate school environments due to disability

Even in urgent circumstances, parents must still navigate a consent process — which may be refused — and if refused, they cannot reapply for six months.

For many families, particularly those caring for medically fragile or disabled children, this is not only unworkable but potentially unsafe.

3. Higher Safeguarding Thresholds for Families — Even When Attendance Issues Are Disability-Related

If a family is subject to a section 47 safeguarding enquiry, which can be triggered by disability-related non-attendance, the Bill raises the legal threshold further.

Parents must now prove that home education is in the child’s best interests, not simply that it is suitable.

This conflates disability-related attendance difficulties with safeguarding risk and results in:

• Disabled children being drawn into safeguarding processes due to unmet needs

• Families facing additional barriers to home education, even where home is the safest environment

4. Home-Education Support Explicitly Excludes Children With EHC Plans

The Bill creates a new duty for local authorities to provide advice and information to home-educating families — but explicitly excludes children with EHC plans.

This removes access to guidance, resources, and support from the very children who often need it most.

It assumes children with EHC plans will remain in school, ignoring the reality that many are withdrawn because school provision is inadequate or actively harmful.

5. Extensive Sensitive Data Collected on a Statutory Register of Children Not in School

Local authorities will be required to maintain a statutory register containing highly sensitive personal data, including:

• protected characteristics

• special educational needs

• EHC plan status

• safeguarding history

• child-in-need history

While data sharing is limited to safeguarding purposes, this creates serious concerns around privacy, stigma, and long-term data misuse.

Families must be fully informed of their rights under UK GDPR.

6. Expanded School Attendance Order Powers Introduce Criminal Liability

The Bill significantly strengthens School Attendance Orders (SAOs). Failure to comply may result in:

• fines

• criminal records

• imprisonment of up to 51 weeks

Key concerns include:

• Children medically unable to attend school still being subject to SAOs

• Parents declining home visits (for sensory or medical reasons) being penalised

• Disability-related absences being treated as non-compliance

This creates a real risk of criminalising parents already navigating systemic failures.

7. Six-Month Ban on Reapplying After Consent Is Refused

If consent to withdraw is refused, families are barred from reapplying for six months.

For a child in crisis, this delay may lead to:

• mental health deterioration

• physical harm

• family breakdown

• escalation to social care involvement

This severely undermines a parent’s ability to act quickly in their child’s best interests.

8. Increased Regulation of Small SEN Provision Risks Reducing Options

The Bill broadens the definition of independent educational institutions to include settings educating even one child with SEN.

While safeguarding is vital, this may:

• shut down small specialist providers

• reduce trauma-informed or therapeutic options

• leave children with complex needs with no suitable placement

Conclusion: A Bill That Risks Leaving the Most Vulnerable Children Worse Off

Although framed as safeguarding reform, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill places disproportionate burdens on families of disabled children.

It prioritises administrative control over flexibility, wellbeing, and parental judgement.

Families, advocates, and professionals must engage urgently to ensure amendments protect the dignity, safety, and rights of children with additional needs.