State interference in home education is often justified as something that can identify situations where home education is used as a smoke screen to hide child neglect. The report on the home education roundtable in 2020 refers to the minister of Basic Education: "She cited a Benoni case which could have been avoided where parents locked the children up, and the State had to account for that."

In the USA the Coalition for Responsible Home Education in a 2025 publication also argued : "We draw attention to the fact that abuse and neglect do occur in homeschool settings, and that homeschooling discussions are often premised on the incorrect assumption that every parent homeschools with good intentions, and that good intentions always produce good outcomes."

While it cannot be assumed that child neglect that child neglect does not occur under homeschoolers, there is no research that indicates that there is significant higher levels of child neglect under home learners than school learners to justify additional state regulation for home education. Furthermore such state regulation disproportionately limits the freedom of the majority of responsible parents to promote the best interests of their children in terms of S28 of the constitution. Given that the best interests of these children are of paramount importance, they cannot be disproportionately compromised for the interests of minority of children.

It therefore seems that the argument that home education is used as a smoke screen for child neglect, is itself a smoke screen for increased regulation of home education without any rational justification. The emotional reaction to child neglect is used to cause people to accept things that cannot be rationally justified.

There are measures in the Children's Act to identify child neglect by means of compulsory reporters. There is no need for additional regulation of home education.

• Prev
• Next