You moved your family from Kent to the Dordogne, or from Manchester to the Var, and you assumed that home education would work in France the way home education works in England: a deregistration letter to the school, a notification to the local authority, and you carry on teaching at the kitchen table. That assumption is the single most dangerous misunderstanding a British parent can bring across the Channel. Since the start of the September 2022 school year, teaching your child at home in France without the prior written permission of the State is unlawful, and the criminal courts have now confirmed that good teaching, honestly given, does not excuse the missing piece of paper. On 10 June 2026 the criminal chamber of the Cour de cassation, France’s highest criminal court, rejected the appeals of two parents who had taught their children at home, had undergone positive inspections, and had refused on principle to file an application. The message for British families is blunt: the quality of your teaching is judged at the application stage, not as a defence afterwards.<\/p>\n
This guide explains the French system of instruction en famille<\/em>, literally instruction within the family, the term French law uses for what British readers call home-schooling or home education. It sets out who needs permission, the four statutory reasons for which permission can be granted, how and when to apply to the directeur acad\u00e9mique des services de l’\u00e9ducation nationale<\/em>, the academic director of State education services in your d\u00e9partement, universally shortened to Dasen, what the annual inspection involves, and the exact appeal route when the answer is no. Every decisive statement below is anchored in the text of the Education Code, the Criminal Code, the Code of Administrative Justice, or the June 2026 ruling, quoted word for word. French terms are explained at first use, because this article is written for a British reader dealing with a French administration that corresponds, decides, and prosecutes in French.<\/p>\n Yes, without exception. French law starts from a rule that surprises many British parents: Article L. 131-1 of the Education Code<\/a> provides that “L’instruction est obligatoire pour chaque enfant d\u00e8s l’\u00e2ge de trois ans et jusqu’\u00e0 l’\u00e2ge de seize ans”, which means that instruction is compulsory for every child from the age of three until the age of sixteen. The obligation attaches to the child living in France, and the official service-public.fr information page confirms that a child living in France may be educated in the family whatever nationality the child holds. British nationality therefore changes nothing. Your child does not need to be French, you do not need to hold a particular residence permit for the schooling rules to apply to you, and the fact that home education is lightly regulated in England and Wales gives you no passport to carry that regime into France. What matters is residence: once your child of compulsory school age lives in France, French schooling law governs the family, and that law gives priority to school attendance. Article L. 131-1-1 of the Education Code<\/a> closes its definition of the child’s right to instruction with the sentence “Cette instruction obligatoire est assur\u00e9e prioritairement dans les \u00e9tablissements d’enseignement”, meaning compulsory instruction is provided as a priority in teaching establishments. Home instruction is the exception, school is the rule, and that hierarchy runs through every decision a Dasen takes.<\/p>\n The permission requirement itself is stated in the first article every British applicant should read in full. Article L. 131-5 of the Education Code<\/a> provides: “Les personnes responsables d’un enfant soumis \u00e0 l’obligation scolaire d\u00e9finie \u00e0 l’article L. 131-1 doivent le faire inscrire dans un \u00e9tablissement d’enseignement public ou priv\u00e9 ou bien, \u00e0 condition d’y avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 autoris\u00e9es par l’autorit\u00e9 de l’Etat comp\u00e9tente en mati\u00e8re d’\u00e9ducation, lui donner l’instruction en famille.” In ordinary English: the people responsible for a child of compulsory school age must enrol the child in a public or private teaching establishment or, on condition of having been authorised by the competent State education authority, give the child instruction within the family. Note the architecture of that sentence. Enrolment is the default duty. Home instruction is lawful only where an authorisation has already been granted, before teaching begins. The same article adds that the same steps must be completed within eight days of any change of residence, a detail that catches British families who move house between d\u00e9partements mid-year and assume their authorisation travels with them. It does not travel automatically: the Dasen of the new d\u00e9partement of residence must be informed, and the file follows the child, not the parents’ assumptions.<\/p>\n This authorisation regime is recent. It was created by Act No. 2021-1109 of 24 August 2021 reinforcing respect for the principles of the Republic, which replaced the old yearly declaration system with a permission system, and the version of Article L. 131-5 now in force applies from 1 September 2022. Families who home-educated in France under the pre-2022 declaration, or who home-educate in England under the English notification system, sometimes tell British newcomers that a letter to the authorities is enough. It is not, and it has not been for four school years. The June 2026 Cour de cassation ruling examined below was precisely a case of parents who relied on their established practice and their principles instead of filing the application, and the court upheld their convictions. Before looking at that ruling, it is worth understanding the four doors the statute leaves open, because a British family that walks through the correct door, with the correct file, in the correct months, is normally granted permission without difficulty.<\/p>\n Article L. 131-5 allows authorisation only on four statutory grounds, and the text of Article L. 131-5<\/a> states the exclusivity twice over: “L’autorisation mentionn\u00e9e au premier alin\u00e9a est accord\u00e9e pour les motifs suivants, sans que puissent \u00eatre invoqu\u00e9es d’autres raisons que l’int\u00e9r\u00eat sup\u00e9rieur de l’enfant : 1\u00b0 L’\u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 de l’enfant ou son handicap ; 2\u00b0 La pratique d’activit\u00e9s sportives ou artistiques intensives ; 3\u00b0 L’itin\u00e9rance de la famille en France ou l’\u00e9loignement g\u00e9ographique de tout \u00e9tablissement scolaire public ; 4\u00b0 L’existence d’une situation propre \u00e0 l’enfant motivant le projet \u00e9ducatif, sous r\u00e9serve que les personnes qui en sont responsables justifient de la capacit\u00e9 de la ou des personnes charg\u00e9es d’instruire l’enfant \u00e0 assurer l’instruction en famille dans le respect de l’int\u00e9r\u00eat sup\u00e9rieur de l’enfant.” In English: the authorisation is granted on the following grounds, with no reasons other than the best interests of the child capable of being invoked: first, the child’s state of health or disability; second, the intensive practice of sporting or artistic activities; third, the family’s itinerancy within France or geographical remoteness from any public school; fourth, a situation specific to the child that motivates the educational project, provided those responsible show that the person or persons who will teach the child are capable of providing home instruction consistently with the child’s best interests. The best interests of the child, l’int\u00e9r\u00eat sup\u00e9rieur de l’enfant<\/em>, is therefore both the ceiling and the floor: nothing outside the four grounds qualifies, and everything inside them is measured against the child, never against the parents’ philosophy, pedagogy, or convenience.<\/p>\n Each ground has its own evidential burden, fixed by regulation, and British families should match their situation to the ground honestly rather than forcing it. Where the application relies on the child’s health, Article R. 131-11-2 of the Education Code<\/a> requires that “Lorsque la demande d’autorisation est motiv\u00e9e par l’\u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 de l’enfant, elle comprend un certificat m\u00e9dical de moins d’un an sous pli ferm\u00e9 attestant de la pathologie de l’enfant”, a medical certificate less than a year old, in a sealed envelope, attesting the child’s condition, which the Dasen forwards unopened to the education authority’s doctor for an opinion. Disability cases require the medical certificate used for the disability file or the decisions of the CDAPH, the commission des droits et de l’autonomie des personnes handicap\u00e9es<\/em>, the commission on the rights and autonomy of disabled persons. An authorisation granted on health or disability grounds can run for up to three school years instead of one, which is the only multi-year permission the system offers. Sporting and artistic intensity must be shown by enrolment with a sporting or artistic body plus a presentation of the child’s timetable proving assiduous school attendance is impossible. Itinerancy and remoteness require any useful evidence of the impossibility of regular attendance, a ground that suits travelling families and genuinely isolated rural households, not parents who simply live a twenty-minute drive from the village school.<\/p>\n Most British applications in practice go through the fourth ground, the child-specific situation, and this is where the file is heaviest. Article R. 131-11-5 of the Education Code<\/a> demands a written educational project describing the teaching approach and methods for each area of the common foundation of knowledge, skills and culture, the resources and materials used, the organisation of the child’s time, and any distance-learning body involved; evidence of the availability of the teaching person; a copy of that person’s baccalaur\u00e9at<\/em> diploma or equivalent; and a sworn statement that instruction will be given mostly in French. Three points in that list deserve underlining for British readers. First, the diploma condition: a British parent relying on A-levels, Scottish Highers, or a university degree does not automatically fail, because the same article provides that “Le directeur acad\u00e9mique des services de l’\u00e9ducation nationale peut autoriser une personne pourvue d’un titre ou dipl\u00f4me \u00e9tranger \u00e0 assurer l’instruction dans la famille, si ce titre ou dipl\u00f4me \u00e9tranger est comparable \u00e0 un dipl\u00f4me de niveau 4 du cadre national des certifications professionnelles”, meaning the Dasen may accept a foreign qualification comparable to a level 4 diploma of the national framework, the level at which the French baccalaur\u00e9at<\/em> sits. A-levels are normally argued to sit at that level, but the comparison is the Dasen’s decision, so attach any official comparability statement you hold and do not treat the point as automatic. Second, the language undertaking: “Une d\u00e9claration sur l’honneur de la ou des personnes charg\u00e9es d’instruire l’enfant d’assurer cette instruction majoritairement en langue fran\u00e7aise.” A bilingual household that teaches mostly in English, with French as a side subject, does not satisfy this undertaking, and an inspector who finds English-dominant teaching may treat the authorisation conditions as breached. Third, the project must be written, individualised to the child, and mapped to the French socle commun<\/em>, the common foundation; a generic English-language unschooling statement downloaded from the internet will not survive the interview that the Dasen is entitled to hold with the child, the parents, and the teaching person to assess the family’s capacity.<\/p>\n The application goes to the Dasen of the d\u00e9partement where the child lives, within a statutory window that is easy to miss from abroad. Article R. 131-11 of the Education Code<\/a> provides that “Les personnes responsables d’un enfant qui sollicitent la d\u00e9livrance de l’autorisation d’instruction dans la famille dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues par l’article L. 131-5 adressent leur demande au directeur acad\u00e9mique des services de l’\u00e9ducation nationale du d\u00e9partement de r\u00e9sidence de l’enfant entre le 1er mars et le 31 mai inclus pr\u00e9c\u00e9dant l’ann\u00e9e scolaire au titre de laquelle cette demande est formul\u00e9e.” Applications for the coming school year must therefore be sent between 1 March and 31 May inclusive. A British family that completes its move to France in July or August, after the window has closed, is not left without a remedy: the same article allows applications outside the window on grounds that arose afterwards, connected with the child’s health, disability, or geographical remoteness from any public school. A summer arrival in an isolated hamlet, or a health problem diagnosed in June, can therefore still found an in-year application, with evidence that the ground genuinely post-dates 31 May. Families relying on the fourth ground, the child-specific situation, after a summer move face a harder but not hopeless argument, and they should file immediately on arrival rather than teaching first and applying later, because every week of unauthorised teaching is a week of unlawful instruction that a later authorisation does not retroactively cure.<\/p>\n The file itself is standardised. Article R. 131-11-1 of the Education Code<\/a> states that “Toute demande d’autorisation comporte les pi\u00e8ces suivantes : 1\u00b0 Un formulaire de demande d’autorisation dont le mod\u00e8le est fix\u00e9 par le ministre charg\u00e9 de l’\u00e9ducation nationale ; 2\u00b0 Un document justifiant de l’identit\u00e9 de l’enfant ; 3\u00b0 Un document justifiant de l’identit\u00e9 des personnes responsables de l’enfant ; 4\u00b0 Un document justifiant de leur domicile ; 5\u00b0 Un document justifiant de l’identit\u00e9 de la ou des personnes charg\u00e9es d’instruire l’enfant lorsqu’il ne s’agit pas des personnes responsables de l’enfant.” To that core file are added the ground-specific documents described above, and, for a child already in school whose physical or moral integrity is at risk, the reasoned opinion of the school head following discussion with the family. For British applicants, two practical warnings matter. Proof of domicile means a French address with supporting bills or a tenancy agreement; a family still house-hunting from the United Kingdom, or living in a holiday home without stable residence, will struggle to constitute the file, and the authorisation attaches to the d\u00e9partement of residence in any event. Proof of identity for the child normally means a passport, and a British passport is perfectly acceptable, but the file, the educational project, and all correspondence should be in French or accompanied by a French version, because the Dasen’s services examine in French and the interview is conducted in French. An application drafted only in English, however sincere, signals that the undertaking to teach mostly in French may not be understood, let alone honoured.<\/p>\n Once the file is lodged, the administration works to a clock that protects the applicant. The Dasen acknowledges receipt and may request missing documents within a maximum of fifteen days. The decision must then come within two months of the complete file, and silence means consent, since Article L. 131-5<\/a> adds: “En application de l’article L. 231-1 du code des relations entre le public et l’administration, le silence gard\u00e9 pendant deux mois par l’autorit\u00e9 de l’Etat comp\u00e9tente en mati\u00e8re d’\u00e9ducation sur une demande d’autorisation formul\u00e9e en application du premier alin\u00e9a du pr\u00e9sent article vaut d\u00e9cision d’acceptation.” Keep the acknowledgement of receipt and proof of every document sent, because the two-month period runs from the complete file and only your paper trail proves when completeness was reached. The authorisation, when granted, lasts for the school year, or up to three school years on health or disability grounds, and it must be renewed; there is no acquired right to home-educate indefinitely. One welcome consequence of a granted authorisation is that it counts as a favourable opinion for fee-exempt enrolment of the child with the CNED, the Centre national d’enseignement \u00e0 distance<\/em>, the national distance-learning centre, in its regulated class, which gives British families access to structured French-language courses aligned with the national curriculum at no charge beyond the normal conditions. Families covered by the Withdrawal Agreement or holding a long-stay visa and residence permit should also keep their immigration position in order in parallel, since schooling disputes never improve an unsettled residence position, a subject examined in the companion guide to first residence steps and refusals for British newcomers<\/a>.<\/p>\n Permission is the beginning of supervision, not the end of it. French home instruction is monitored through two parallel tracks, the mayor’s enquiry and the education authority’s inspection, and a refusal of authorisation opens a short, staged appeal route that must be used quickly. British parents should understand both tracks before they need them, because the deadlines for challenge run in days and weeks, not months, and because the criminal law stands behind the whole structure. Nothing in this section should alarm a family that applied properly, teaches in line with its project, and cooperates with inspections; the controls are routine for compliant families. They become serious only where authorisation is missing, conditions are breached, or inspections are refused, and the June 2026 ruling shows exactly where that road ends.<\/p>\n The first track belongs to the mayor. Article L. 131-10 of the Education Code<\/a> provides that “Les enfants soumis \u00e0 l’obligation scolaire qui re\u00e7oivent l’instruction dans leur famille, y compris dans le cadre d’une inscription dans un \u00e9tablissement d’enseignement \u00e0 distance, sont d\u00e8s la premi\u00e8re ann\u00e9e, et tous les deux ans, l’objet d’une enqu\u00eate de la mairie comp\u00e9tente, uniquement aux fins de v\u00e9rifier la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 des motifs avanc\u00e9s par les personnes responsables de l’enfant pour obtenir l’autorisation mentionn\u00e9e \u00e0 l’article L. 131-5, et s’il leur est donn\u00e9 une instruction dans la mesure compatible avec leur \u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 et les conditions de vie de la famille.” From the first year and then every two years, the mairie<\/em>, the town hall, enquires into whether the stated grounds for authorisation are real and whether the child is actually being taught, compatibly with health and family circumstances, and the parents must supply a medical follow-up certificate for the child. If the mayor’s enquiry is not carried out, the State’s representative in the d\u00e9partement orders it, so it cannot simply be waited out. British families in small communes sometimes experience this enquiry as a visit or a summons to the town hall; it is administrative verification, not a judgment on parenting, and the way to pass it is documentary: authorisation, evidence the ground persists, evidence the child is learning.<\/p>\n The second track belongs to the education authority and goes to pedagogy. The same article continues, in the text of Article L. 131-10<\/a>: “L’autorit\u00e9 de l’Etat comp\u00e9tente en mati\u00e8re d’\u00e9ducation doit au moins une fois par an, \u00e0 partir du troisi\u00e8me mois suivant la d\u00e9livrance de l’autorisation pr\u00e9vue au premier alin\u00e9a de l’article L. 131-5, faire v\u00e9rifier, d’une part, que l’instruction dispens\u00e9e au m\u00eame domicile l’est pour les enfants d’une seule famille et, d’autre part, que l’enseignement assur\u00e9 est conforme au droit de l’enfant \u00e0 l’instruction tel que d\u00e9fini \u00e0 l’article L. 131-1-1.” At least once a year, starting from the third month after authorisation, inspectors verify two things: that only the children of one family are taught at the address, collective or neighbourhood teaching under one roof is prohibited, and that teaching meets the child’s right to instruction by tracking progressive acquisition of the socle commun<\/em>, the common foundation of knowledge, skills and culture, against the targets for each school cycle, adapted to the child’s age and any disability. The inspection is in principle held at the home where the child is taught, parents are told in advance of its purpose and methods, and the results are formally notified to them. For a British family teaching bilingually, this is the moment the French-mostly undertaking is tested in practice: an inspector who finds the child progressing in English but stagnating in French has grounds for an adverse finding, however impressive the English work may be.<\/p>\n An adverse finding is not immediately fatal; the statute builds in a second chance with a warning attached. while Article L. 131-10<\/a> continues: “Lorsque ces r\u00e9sultats sont jug\u00e9s insuffisants, les personnes responsables de l’enfant sont inform\u00e9es du d\u00e9lai au terme duquel un second contr\u00f4le est pr\u00e9vu et des insuffisances de l’enseignement dispens\u00e9 auxquelles il convient de rem\u00e9dier.” Parents are told the deadline for a second inspection and the shortcomings to remedy. But the same sentence continues with the warning, and parents are also told of the criminal penalties they may face at the end of the procedure. If the second inspection is also judged insufficient, Article L. 131-10<\/a> provides that “l’autorit\u00e9 de l’Etat comp\u00e9tente en mati\u00e8re d’\u00e9ducation met en demeure les personnes responsables de l’enfant de l’inscrire, dans les quinze jours suivant la notification de cette mise en demeure, dans un \u00e9tablissement d’enseignement scolaire public ou priv\u00e9”, with the school named to the mayor, and the child must then remain in school at least until the end of the school year following the year of the formal notice. Refusing inspection outright is treated just as seriously: parents who refuse the annual check without lawful reason are warned that a second unjustified refusal entitles the authority to issue the same fifteen-day enrolment notice, again with criminal penalties in the background. Cooperation is therefore never optional, and a British family’s best protection at every inspection is a dated, French-language record of work mapped to the socle commun<\/em>, exactly as the authorised project promised.<\/p>\n A refusal from the Dasen must be challenged fast, through a compulsory first step that many British parents have never encountered. The statute itself, in Article L. 131-5<\/a>, states that “La d\u00e9cision de refus d’autorisation fait l’objet d’un recours administratif pr\u00e9alable aupr\u00e8s d’une commission pr\u00e9sid\u00e9e par le recteur d’acad\u00e9mie, dans des conditions fix\u00e9es par d\u00e9cret.” This recours administratif pr\u00e9alable obligatoire<\/em>, the compulsory prior administrative appeal universally called the RAPO, goes to a commission chaired by the recteur d’acad\u00e9mie<\/em>, the regional education chief. The official service-public.fr page gives the timetable: the challenge must be filed within fifteen days of notification of the refusal, the commission meets within one month at most of receiving the appeal, and it notifies its decision within five working days. Fifteen days to appeal, one month for the hearing, five working days for notification: a parent who waits, who writes in English to the wrong office, or who treats the refusal as negotiable by telephone will miss the window and be left teaching unlawfully while the file goes stale. The RAPO letter should be sent by a provable method, in French, identifying the refusal, restating the statutory ground relied on, attaching the missing or reinforced evidence, and expressly requesting referral to the commission. If the commission confirms the refusal, the official page points the parent to the administrative courts, which means an application to the tribunal administratif<\/em>, the administrative court, within the standard two-month period: Article R. 421-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice<\/a> provides that “La juridiction ne peut \u00eatre saisie que par voie de recours form\u00e9 contre une d\u00e9cision, et ce, dans les deux mois \u00e0 partir de la notification ou de la publication de la d\u00e9cision attaqu\u00e9e.” Where the start of term is imminent and the child would otherwise have to be enrolled pending judgment, the emergency route exists alongside the main claim: Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice<\/a> allows the interim relief judge to suspend a refusal where urgency is shown and a ground raised creates serious doubt about legality, since “le juge des r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9s, saisi d’une demande en ce sens, peut ordonner la suspension de l’ex\u00e9cution de cette d\u00e9cision, ou de certains de ses effets, lorsque l’urgence le justifie et qu’il est fait \u00e9tat d’un moyen propre \u00e0 cr\u00e9er, en l’\u00e9tat de l’instruction, un doute s\u00e9rieux quant \u00e0 la l\u00e9galit\u00e9 de la d\u00e9cision.” A suspension does not decide the case, but it can hold the position while the court examines the merits, which is precisely what a family facing September needs.<\/p>\n Teaching without the authorisation, by contrast, leads to a formal notice and then to the criminal court. Article L. 131-5-1 of the Education Code<\/a> provides that “Lorsqu’elle constate qu’un enfant re\u00e7oit l’instruction dans la famille sans l’autorisation mentionn\u00e9e \u00e0 l’article L. 131-5, l’autorit\u00e9 de l’Etat comp\u00e9tente en mati\u00e8re d’\u00e9ducation met en demeure les personnes responsables de l’enfant de l’inscrire, dans un d\u00e9lai de quinze jours \u00e0 compter de la notification de la mise en demeure, dans un \u00e9tablissement d’enseignement scolaire public ou priv\u00e9”, and an authorisation obtained by fraud is withdrawn immediately with the same fifteen-day notice. Ignoring that notice is the criminal offence: Article 227-17-1 of the Criminal Code<\/a> punishes “Le fait, par les parents d’un enfant ou toute personne exer\u00e7ant \u00e0 son \u00e9gard l’autorit\u00e9 parentale ou une autorit\u00e9 de fait de fa\u00e7on continue, de ne pas l’inscrire dans un \u00e9tablissement d’enseignement, sans excuse valable, en d\u00e9pit d’une mise en demeure de l’autorit\u00e9 de l’Etat comp\u00e9tente en mati\u00e8re d’\u00e9ducation” with “six mois d’emprisonnement et de 7 500 euros d’amende”, six months’ imprisonment and a 7,500 euro fine. The hinge of every prosecution is the phrase sans excuse valable<\/em>, without valid excuse, and the Cour de cassation has now fixed its meaning for home-schooling cases.<\/p>\nI. Do British parents need permission to home-school their child in France?<\/h2>\n
A. Which reasons can support your home-schooling application?<\/h3>\n
B. How and when do you apply to the Dasen for permission?<\/h3>\n
II. What happens if the inspection fails or your application is refused?<\/h2>\n
A. How do the mairie enquiry and the annual inspection of home-schooling work?<\/h3>\n
B. How do you challenge a refusal, and what are the penalties for teaching without permission?<\/h3>\n