New home education rules: what SEND families need to know



On 12 November 2026 the Department for Education published its draft statutory guidance on Children Not in School.


 It sets out how the home education parts of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 are likely to work in practice. If your child attends a special school, or your family has had involvement with children’s social care, this guidance matters to you, and you have until 3 February 2027 to have your say.


This article explains what the Act does, what the draft guidance actually says, why some lawyers and parents are worried, and what you can do now.


Your voice counts.


The consultation closes on 3 February 2027. The Government has asked specific questions about best interests, home visits and what goes on the register, and the answers will shape the final rules. There is a step-by-step guide to responding at the end of this article.


A quick recap: what the Act changed


The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026. For home education in England, it does three main things:


  • A compulsory register. Every local authority must keep a register of children who are not in school, including home-educated children. Parents will have a duty to provide information for it.
  • Consent to withdraw. Some parents will need the local authority’s consent before they can take their child out of school to home educate.
  • Powers over children already home educated. Where a home-educated child is subject to a section 47 child protection enquiry or a child protection plan, the local authority can decide that school is in the child’s best interests and require the child to be registered at a school.


None of this is in force yet. The guidance is a draft for consultation, not final rules.


Who needs local authority consent?


The consent requirement applies to a child who is:


  • at a special school (including an independent special school) under arrangements made by the local authority;
  • subject to a section 47 child protection enquiry; or
  • on a child protection plan now, or has been at any point in the last five years.


For SEND families, the first group is the important one. Parents of children placed by the local authority at a special school already need its consent to remove them from the school roll. Under the current rules, that consent must not be withheld unreasonably.


The new Act goes further: if the local authority considers that attending school is in the child’s best interests, it must refuse consent.


What the legislation actually says


The consent rules sit in a new section 434A of the Education Act 1996, added by section 39 of the 2026 Act. In plain English, this is how it works.


The two groups of children (“relevant children”)


  • Condition A: the child was placed by a local authority at a special school, or at an independent school specially organised for pupils with SEN.
  • Condition B: the local authority is carrying out section 47 child protection enquiries, or has taken action under section 47(8), because it believes the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. This includes such action taken in the previous five years.



How the decision is made


  • When a parent tells the school they intend to withdraw their child, the school must notify the local authority.
  • The school cannot take the child off its roll until it receives notice that consent has been given.
  • The local authority must decide “without undue delay”. The Act sets no fixed number of days.
  • The local authority must refuse consent if it considers regular school attendance is in the child’s best interests, or if suitable education has not been arranged. Otherwise, it must grant consent.
  • The decision must be sent to the parent who applied, to any other parent whose details are known, and to the school.


If consent is refused


  • A parent can refer the decision to the Secretary of State, who can uphold it, send it back to the local authority, or give a direction.
  • After a refusal, the local authority does not have to look at a fresh application until six months have passed.


Children already being home educated

Where a home-educated child falls within Condition B, the local authority must serve a preliminary notice if it thinks regular school attendance would be in the child’s best interests. The parent then has to show that the education they are providing is in the child’s best interests. If they cannot, a School Attendance Order can follow. An order cannot be made on that ground alone once there have been no section 47 enquiries or action for five years.


Mandatory meetings pilot

The Act also requires a pilot in up to 30% of local authorities. In those areas, parents who want to withdraw any child for home education must first attend a meeting with the local authority. The meeting covers the parent’s reasons, the child’s support needs, safeguarding and welfare. The child must attend unless there are exceptional circumstances. A school representative can attend only if the parent agrees.


Why the guidance matters so much

Under the new section 436U, local authorities “must have regard to” the Secretary of State’s guidance when they use these powers. That means this draft will shape how every one of these decisions is made in practice. It is also why the consultation is worth responding to.


What the draft guidance says


The Department published three documents: the full draft statutory guidance (126 pages), a shorter overview guide for parents, and a consultation document. Page numbers below refer to the full draft guidance.


1. Parents will need to show that school is not in their child’s best interests


On consent applications, the draft says (p.15):


“Applications should contain information demonstrating that suitable arrangements have been made for the child to be educated otherwise than at school and that it would not be in the child’s best interests to attend school.”


This is a real shift. At the moment, the legal question for home education is whether the education is suitable. Under these proposals, a well-planned, suitable home education may not be enough on its own. Parents will also have to make the case for why the local authority should not insist on their child staying in school.


The draft also raises the bar for the education plan itself. It says a plan “should not just contain a list of resources or platforms”. Instead, it must show how the child will make progress according to their age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs (p.16).


2. The Government accepts home education is not a safeguarding concern


The draft opens with a set of general principles (pp.3 to 4). They include:


“Home education is not itself a safeguarding concern. Safeguarding concerns should be based on evidence of risk, not solely on where or how a child is being educated.”


The same principles say that parents “do not need teaching qualifications or specialist training” to provide a suitable education. They also say: “No parent should feel forced to withdraw their child from school due to their child’s SEND.”


Those are welcome words. But they sit awkwardly with the consent rules. A child at a special school needs consent simply because of the type of school they attend, not because of any evidence of risk. Many families will ask why their choices should be narrower than those of a family whose child is in mainstream school.


3. The guidance recognises that school can cause harm


When deciding a child’s best interests, the draft tells local authorities to consider the child’s views, wishes and lived experience, their safety and welfare, and their educational, physical and emotional needs (p.17).


They must look at “whether withdrawal from school … would increase or reduce any identified risks”.


Crucially, harm is defined broadly. The draft says it “may occur within or outside the home, in education settings or online”, and lists bullying and self-harm among the examples (p.18).


This matters, and it is something we see every week. Very few parents take a child with SEND out of school on a whim. More often it comes after years of trying to get the right support, or after a child has become seriously distressed, unable to attend, or unsafe. The guidance gives families a way to put that evidence forward, and it should be used. The concern is that the process adds another hurdle for parents at the point when they are trying to protect their child.


It is also worth noting who decides. For a child at a special school, the draft says the elective home education team should lead the decision, “with input from the SEND team where appropriate” (p.16). Families may reasonably ask why SEND input is not always expected.


4. Registers could hold concerns below the child protection threshold


The draft lists a wide range of information local authorities must record if they hold it or can reasonably obtain it. This includes whether a child has an EHC plan or SEN support, whether they are or have been on a child protection plan, the reasons for home education (“for example, mental health, school dissatisfaction”), and the number of home visits requested and refused (pp.31 to 32).

It then goes further (pp.32 to 33):


“Registers may also include any other information that the local authority considers appropriate. This could include, for instance: a concern received by a local authority that does not meet the threshold for a section 47 enquiry, but which would still be useful for the local authority to make note of in case more concerns are raised”



There are safeguards. Local authorities “should take reasonable steps to establish the accuracy of the information” and should give parents “an opportunity to correct factual inaccuracies” (p.33). Those deserve credit. But correcting a wrong date of birth is very different from challenging a concern that was never investigated. An unproven concern is not a finding, and families are right to ask how long such notes will be kept and who will see them.


One helpful point for parents: much of the extra information is voluntary. The draft says parents “have no obligation to provide this information” and need not give reasons for declining. The local authority must not draw conclusions about the child’s education from that refusal (p.32).


5. Home visits


Local authorities will be able to request a home visit. The draft says they are “not expected to visit all families as a matter of course”, but it lists families to prioritise. That list includes children who are on, or have been on, a child protection plan in the last five years, and children on Children in Need plans.

Parents can refuse a visit. The draft says a refusal “should not, by itself, be taken as evidence that education is unsuitable or that the child is at risk of harm”. However, a refusal can still be treated as a relevant factor in deciding whether to start the School Attendance Order process.


6. A telling example


Annex F sets out worked examples. One describes a child placed on a child protection plan three years ago because one parent was abusive (pp.111 to 112):

“The non-abusive parent has since separated from the abusive parent, cooperated with support services, resulting in the child protection plan ending. The non-abusive parent now wants to home educate the child.”


The guidance’s answer is clear: “The parent must apply for the local authority’s consent to withdraw their child from school for home education.”


To be fair, the example also tells the local authority to consider whether the original circumstances still apply, such as the abusive parent’s level of contact. It also allows the authority not to tell the abusive parent the outcome if that could put the family at risk. But a parent who did nothing wrong, and whose case has closed, still has to ask permission.


7. What the draft says about children with EHC plans


The SEND section (pp.84 to 85) contains points every family should know:


  • If parents are considering home education, the local authority “should explore” whether additional or different support could keep the child in their setting, “providing this is what the parents ultimately want”.
  • If parents choose home education and it is suitable, the local authority is no longer under a duty to secure the special educational provision in the plan, and has “no duty to assist the parents with the costs”.
  • A local authority “cannot stop maintaining an EHC plan simply because a child is being home educated”.
  • Parents do not have to “exactly … replicate” the provision in the plan, as long as the child’s needs are met.
  • The overall message for families is that home education under an EHC plan usually means taking on the cost and responsibility yourself. That makes it all the more important to look at EOTAS before deciding.


8. What every home-educating parent will have to tell the local authority


The register applies to all home-educated and flexi-schooled children, not just those who need consent. The draft sets out what parents must provide (pp.25 to 28):


  • the child’s full name, date of birth and address (and any previous address in the last 12 months, or second address);
  • each parent’s name and address, and which parent(s) are providing education
  • an estimate of how much time the child spends being educated by each parent, and by other people. Estimates are given in bands: 0 hours, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, or 16 hours or more;
  • details of any provider (a tutor, club or online school, for example) that educates the child for more than 6 hours a week.


Parents usually have 15 days to give this information once their child becomes eligible, for example after coming off a school roll. Changes of name or address must also be reported within 15 days.


The draft says local authorities should allow more time at difficult moments, including bereavement, redundancy, a new caring role, an ongoing health condition, or having to move suddenly because of domestic abuse (p.30).


This part is not optional. If a parent fails to provide the compulsory information, or gives incorrect information, the draft says the local authority must serve a preliminary notice asking for evidence of suitable education (p.31). That is the first step towards a School Attendance Order.


9. Yearly checks on your child’s education


Local authorities are expected to make informal enquiries with every home-educating family at least once a year (p.50). The draft says they should be open to evidence “in a format of the parents’ choosing”, such as a written report, samples of work, a conversation, or photos and videos.


If the local authority thinks education does not appear suitable, it should explain why, suggest how parents could show it is suitable, and set out the next steps. The draft also says a local authority “should not require a formal diagnosis or third-party evidence” before considering a child’s possible SEND, and that parents’ views “should be given due weight” (p.22).


10. Support for home-educating families


The Act creates a new duty on local authorities to give advice and information to registered families who ask for it (p.45). This could include signposting to resources, the SEND Local Offer and information about sitting GCSEs.


There are limits. Families whose child has an EHC plan with provision the local authority is securing, or who receive section 19 education, are not covered, because support already comes through those routes. Any direct financial help for a home-educated child with SEN “should relate only to costs incurred by parents as a result of the SEN of the child” (pp.48 to 49).


Parents of home-educated children can still ask for an EHC needs assessment if they think their child may need an EHC plan.


11. School Attendance Orders for children with EHC plans


If a local authority issues a School Attendance Order for a child with an EHC plan, it must name the school in the plan. If the plan names no school, the local authority must first amend the plan through the usual process (p.65). That means the normal EHCP appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal still apply to the school named.


The draft also says local authorities should explore options “different in nature from the previous setting” where a parent withdrew a child from a setting they felt was unsatisfactory.


12. If you are unhappy with a decision


Consent decisions: a parent can refer the decision to the Secretary of State (p.19). The local authority should give “clear reasons” for its decision (p.18).


How the local authority has acted: use the council’s own complaints process first. If you are still unhappy, or get no reply within 12 weeks, you can go to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (pp.78 to 80). The Ombudsman looks at whether the right process was followed, not whether the decision was right.


Your data: you can ask the local authority for a copy of what it holds about your family (a subject access request), and ask for inaccurate information to be corrected.


The Government’s case


In fairness, the Government’s aim is to protect children who might otherwise be hidden from view. Local authorities and children’s safeguarding organisations strongly supported the registers when they were proposed. Supporters argue that a child at a special school, or with a recent child protection history, may be more vulnerable if they leave school with no one checking on them, and that a consent step is a proportionate safety net.


The consultation document also says the mandatory meetings pilot is meant to help local authorities identify families who feel “forced” to home educate, and to explore extra support where the family would prefer their child to stay in school.


The question critics are raising is not whether protecting children matters (everyone agrees that it does). It is whether these particular powers are necessary and proportionate, and whether they interfere unjustifiably with family life and parents’ decisions about their children’s education.


The legal challenge


A judicial review of the consent provisions has been brought in the High Court. The claimants say the case is properly arguable. The Court has not yet decided whether to give permission for it to go ahead, and the publication of the guidance does not mean the challenge will succeed. It does, however, show far more clearly how the legislation would work in practice.


The case is being funded through a CrowdJustice page, Challenge the risk of reducing rights to family life, for anyone who wants to follow it.


What this means for your family now


  • Nothing has changed yet. The consent requirement and registers are not in force. If you are considering home education, the current rules still apply.
  • If your child is at a special school and struggling, do not wait. Keep a written record of attendance, incidents, distress and any harm, and ask for an early or emergency annual review of the EHCP if needs have changed. Independent professional evidence carries far more weight than a parent’s account alone.
  • Think about EOTAS as well as home education. Education Otherwise Than In School under section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014 is a different route. The local authority arranges and funds the provision through the EHCP, and the family does not take on sole responsibility. For some children it may be a better fit.
  • Get advice before you deregister. Once a child is off roll, getting a school place back can be difficult, and home education does not have to be the only option on the table


Have your say: a step-by-step guide to the consultation


This is the most important part of this article. The consultation closes on 3 February 2027. Once the guidance is final, every local authority in England must “have regard to” it when making decisions about your child. If you want the rules to reflect what SEND families actually experience, now is the time to say so.

You do not need to be a lawyer, and you do not need to answer every question. A few honest, specific answers based on your own family’s experience are worth far more than a long, general response.


Step 1: Read the parts that affect you


The overview guide for parents is short and a good place to start. Then look at these parts of the full draft:


Consent and best interests (pp.14 to 20), if your child attends a special school or has had child protection involvement.

Information for registers (pp.25 to 33), for all home-educating families.

Home visits (pp.52 to 56).

Children with SEND and EHC plans (p.22 and pp.84 to 85).

Annex F worked examples (from p.111), to see how the rules are meant to work in real situations.


Step 2: Choose the questions that matter to you


  • Question 7: Whether the general principles are the right framework. Should principles such as “no parent should feel forced to withdraw their child from school due to their child’s SEND” be stronger or more specific?
  • Question 9: Whether children with protected characteristics, including disabled children, are properly reflected. Does the guidance reflect the reality of children with SEND, including those who cannot attend school because of anxiety or unmet need?
  • Question 13: The factors for deciding a child’s best interests. Should the child’s experience of school, unmet SEND and the impact of attending carry more weight? Should SEND professionals always be involved?
  • Question 14: How local authorities should explain consent decisions. What would you need to see in a decision letter to understand it, or to challenge it?
  • Question 16: What local authorities should consider about the home and learning environment. Are the factors fair to families with disabled children or parents, or caring responsibilities?
  • Question 17: The list of families prioritised for home visits. Is the list proportionate? How should visits be arranged for children with anxiety or sensory needs?
  • Question 18: What counts as a “suitable” education. How should suitability be judged for a child with SEND?
  • Question 19: Whether flexi-schooled children should go on the registers. Does this affect a part-time or reduced-timetable arrangement you have?
  • Question 21: The information recorded on registers. Should concerns below the child protection threshold be recorded? How long should information be kept, and who should see it?
  • Question 22: How registers should be maintained. How easy should it be to see and correct what is held about your child?
  • Questions 31 to 34: The mandatory meetings pilot. Is two weeks a reasonable timescale? Should meetings be offered online? Should more children be excused from attending, for example because of anxiety?
  • Question 35: Any other comments. Anything the questions have not covered




  Step 3: Write your answers


  • Say briefly who you are, for example “parent of a child with an EHC plan at a special school” or “home-educating parent of an autistic child”.
  • Use real examples from your own experience. You can keep your child anonymous.
  • Be specific about what you would change. For example: “The guidance should say that a concern below the section 47 threshold must be deleted after a set period if no further concerns are raised.”
  • Say what works, too. If you think a safeguard is good, say so, so that it is kept.
  • Keep it in your own words. Responses that are copied word for word from a template can carry less weight than individual ones.


Step 4: Send your response


Online: through the Department for Education consultation page on GOV.UK. The Department prefers online responses.

By email: CNIS.consultation@education.gov.uk

By post: CNIS Consultation, Non-School Education Division, Department for Education, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT

The Government says it will publish its response in spring 2027.


Step 5: Encourage others


Share this article with other parents, your local parent carer forum and support groups. The more SEND families respond, the harder it will be for these experiences to be overlooked.

 

We will keep reading the draft and will share more practical guidance as the picture becomes clearer. If you are worried about how these changes could affect your child, or you need help with an EHCP, an annual review or an EOTAS request, please get in touch.


SENDHelp! · hello@sendhelp-uk.com · 0333 0140304 · www.sendhelp-uk.com


This article is general information, not legal advice. The draft guidance may change after the consultation.


Sources