Slideshow image

Dear Church,

Parliament is currently debating a bill that would give the state “unprecedented safeguards for home educated children, ratchet up powers for councils and compel local authorities to establish dedicated, multi-agency safeguarding teams to keep track of children.”(1) This is an example of government overreach that is dressed up as care and concern for the most vulnerable in our society: children. By the way, this is the same group of people who have no problem with aborting children. Who’s keeping track of them? 

To give an example of this overreach, here are the words of Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson: “Keeping children safe will always be my first duty as education secretary, but we can only truly do that if we know where our children are. The sad reality is that at the moment there are thousands of children hidden from sight” (emphasis added). Note the representative of the state using the word “our.” Whose children are these? According to Phillipson, they are the state’s. According to God, they are given to parents (Psalm 127:3-5). She goes on to say that “This government will make no apologies for doing whatever is necessary to keep children out of harm’s way, and I will not stand by while some young people fall through the cracks, left without a good education and vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.” The problem here is who gets to decide what qualifies as “harm?” For example, the Bible affirms physical punishment (e.g. Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15), but many in our political class think that any form of physical punishment is an inherent “harm.” Whose word will we hold as authoritative? There are also those who would consider taking children to church; telling them that there are two genders; that marriage is a life-long, exclusive commitment between one man and one woman; that truth is objective; that there is only one way to God, and so on, as “harmful.” Whose word will we hold as authoritative? Whose world is this? Moreover, it is clear that many things that happen in schools are harmful. (2)

Phillipson also used the word “good.” The government wants children to get a “good” education, and this bill will supposedly ensure that happens. But the same problem arises: who defines good? By what standard? In a government that denies God, whatever is “good” this year could be bad next year. Whoever shouts loudest gets to define “good” and that isn’t any good. 

It goes without saying that Christians are against abuse biblically defined. However we must not call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Training up a child in the way he or she should go (Proverbs 22:6) means that our children should receive a thoroughly Christian upbringing, which has implications for a child’s education. Parents who choose to homeschool their children because they are seeking to give their children a Christian education are not harming their children, they are loving them and being obedient to Christ by doing so (Deuteronomy 6:7; Ephesians 6:4). 

The problem with this bill is not that it is trying to protect children from evil. The state is indeed God’s deacon to enact justice (Romans 13:3-4). But there’s that problem again: who defines justice, God, or godless men? Nonetheless, it is the state’s responsibility under God to enact justice. That’s all well and good. The problem with this bill is its ambiguity. It effectively equates homeschooled children with children who are “missing” and who are “vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.” It risks tarring loving, caring, and deeply responsible parents with the same brush as actual abusers and irresponsible parents. This bill risks becoming a Trojan Horse, a gift that says “we’ll keep your children safe,” which has contained within it a twisted view of the world that believes parents — including (especially?) faithful Christian parents — are not the best people to train up their own children. This is emphatically an anti-Christian position to hold. 

In fact, it’s also an emphatically unconstitutional position to hold. The Education Act 1996 itself states that it is the responsibility of parents to provide a suitable education, and to know what suitable means for their own children (3). Parents are better equipped to figure this out than professional educators, and professional politicians. Parents have been entrusted with this responsibility by God and it is sin for any government or institution to overstep its sphere of responsibility and attempt to rob parents of theirs. 

On the surface of things, this proposed bill does not automatically mean that homeschooling or Christian education will be banned, or that the children of Christians will be sent off to state schools forcibly (although, in the latter example that can happen even now), but it certainly does make that trajectory much more likely, and possibly even inevitable, unless God is merciful to our nation and intervenes. 

I want to encourage you to consider this issue and the long-term consequences of what it would mean. Whether or not you have children, you know that children are a gift from the Lord to parents. They do not belong to the State or to a school, or even to the Church. We must live in this world knowing that God has arranged things in a certain way. In order to do this, please think about writing to your local MP to influence their decision-making. You can see an example of a letter attached to this one that you could use as a template to follow, adapting as you see fit. You can find out who your MP is and you can email them or find out postal information here: https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons. Let us also pray that God would steer our government towards godliness in this, and all other decisions. 

Yours, in Christ,

Dave Scholes
Minister
Veritas Church
11th January 2025

 

Example Letter to MP (4) (5)

I am writing as a concerned constituent to voice my opposition to the proposed Children’s Wellbeing Bill. While the stated intentions of the legislation—to improve consistency, safety, and support in children’s education—may appear commendable, the approach outlined risks undermining educational freedom and parental rights, particularly for home-educating families.

The Bill follows a series of similar failed attempts in previous Parliaments, such as the Schools Bill (2022) and the “Children Not in School” Private Member’s Bill (2024). Both proposals raised significant concerns and failed to gain traction due to their problematic nature. Labour’s new Children’s Wellbeing Bill, as outlined in the King’s Speech briefing notes, now risks repeating these same mistakes.

The Government’s conflation of home-educated children with those “missing education” is especially troubling. Suggesting that home-educated children are at risk of “slipping under the radar” perpetuates a misleading narrative that stigmatizes resourceful and committed parents who have chosen this path. It also disregards the reality that parents are the primary educators of their children, as recognized under the Education Act 1996.

This lack of nuance not only misrepresents the motivations and outcomes of home education but also sets a dangerous precedent. It subtly shifts responsibility for education from parents to the state, undermining the autonomy of families and the individual needs of children.

The proposal for local authorities to provide more “support” to home-educating families raises additional concerns. While support is a noble concept, in practice, it risks becoming a mechanism for intrusive oversight, unwarranted assessments, and unnecessary interference. Home education thrives precisely because it allows for a tailored, child-centred approach that fosters creativity, independence, and a love of learning—qualities often restricted by the rigid frameworks of mainstream schooling.

If this legislation genuinely aims to prioritize the best interests of children, it must respect and trust parents who have a desire to deliver an “efficient full-time education suitable—to his age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs” (Education Act 1996) providing rich, individualized educational experiences. Instead of conflating home-educated children with those genuinely “missing education,” the Government should focus its efforts on addressing the latter group without encroaching on the rights of the former.

I urge you to advocate for a more nuanced approach to this Bill—one that safeguards educational freedom and respects parental rights, while targeting resources and measures where they are genuinely needed.

Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to your response and would welcome any updates on how you intend to address this issue.

 

FOOTNOTES

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/childrens-bill-to-keep-children-safe-from-exploitation

2. See here for some examples of harms that are far less likely to ever take place in a homeschool environment: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges

3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/7

4. This letter was composed by Tom Chaldecott, shared with permission.

5. When writing to your MP, always ensure to include your full name and residential address in the correspondence so they know you are their constituent.