Hundreds of demonstrators from across the country took to central London last weekend to protest against the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Stop the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (SCWSB) marched from Russell Square to Whitehall on Saturday, 17 January to campaign against the legislation, which has prompted much scrutiny since being proposed in December 2024.

The government claims the policy is needed to protect children's safety, and ensure every child receives an appropriate education.

Stop the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (SCWSB) marched from Russell Square to Whitehall on Saturday, 17 January to campaign against the legislation (Credit: James Bools)

But petitions against the bill have racked up more than 180000 signatures.

And Michelle, Campaign Lead, claimed the legislation in its current form is "too broad".

She said: "They [the government] have tried to throw everything into one Bill to try and fix the world and got it wrong on every single angle.

"It covers too much and doesn't get the balance right."

Jenn Hodge, meanwhile, founder of Doing Education Differently and one of the event's speakers, claimed the policy will directly harm Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) children by failing to take their needs – and parental choice - into account.

She said: "The Bill brings in clauses that directly discriminate against SEND children by saying if a local authority places a child into specialist provision, the parent has to seek permission for them to be withdrawn.

"The onus at the moment is on the local authority to find a reason to say no, but within the bill it's shifting to is there a reason to say yes, even if the school's clearly not meeting their needs."

As referenced by Hodge, restrictions on home education were of particular concern among those protesting.

The government has faced mounting pressure to introduce tougher checks on such provision following several high-profile child abuse cases, including the death of Sara Sharif, which directly influenced the Bill.

But Hodge claims that Sharif's death had nothing to do with home educating, and the policy will reduce options for SEND children who struggle to cope in regular education settings.

She said: "If you look at all those cases it wasn't home education, it was a local authority child services failure.

"She [Sharif] was on a home education register and was known to the local authority from birth.

"I think the government is very keen to use it [the Bill] as an excuse to reduce education choice.

"Most home educators now don't home educate because they want to, they do so as a last resort."

Hodge went on to say that even the Victoria Climbie Foundation, which was set up by Climbie's parents in the wake of her death, has reservations about the bill and its ability to protect vulnerable children.

Michelle shared Hodge's sentiments and also sounded the alarm about mandatory meetings which she claims will be introduced as part of the CWSB.

As part of these meetings, she said parents of SEND children will be expected to provide justification for taking them out of school – with the final decision left to the local authority.

Worries surrounding data protection were also prominent among many protesters. 

Although the government's divisive digital ID Bill was dropped earlier this month, Hodge claims the CWSB will still "bring it in through the back door."

Michelle agreed, adding the policy , which includes proposals for an NHS-style single child identifier number - will lead to serious child privacy issues.

She said: "It lowers the data threshold, so we don't need consent from parents or children if it's to promote welfare.

"You should be able to share without consent for safeguarding, but to just promote welfare, that's nothing.

"It effectively removes any data privacy for children."

Michelle further stated that the government is jumping the gun by refusing to examine the impact of such changes until after the law has been implemented.

She said: "Even today there is no data protection impact assessment.

"We've done loads of FOIs (Freedom of Information Requests), ministers have asked and it just isn't there.

"They've even said they're not gonna do an assessment for the single child identifier until they've done the regulations, but that's a bit late.

"You don't put the law in place and go 'oh whoops, maybe we should now assess it.'"