To think that having to have a DBS check to home educate is unfair.

I’ve always thought ineffective monitoring just creates more risk, through complacency.

For example I go to the GP and they have a gut feeling, but not quite evidence, that something isn’t right. They realise the child is unseen, they do a MASH report.
Alternatively they are told by mum ‘oh he’s on the home Ed register! We have checks and I have a DBS.’. The GP feel reassured someone has an eye on things and doesn’t make a report.

In reality neither the register or DBS check mean the child has even been seen. It means mum writes a report, and has no convictions.

Another scenario, a neighbour notices a home educated child never goes out and there is constant shouting. Mum reassured them they have a register and checks, neighbour backs off with their. Concerns.

People who are unsure are far far less likely to report a concern if they believe a child is already monitored and seen, this thread demonstrates that.

The overwhelming abuse cases already slip through because people are convinces that some other service is dealing with the case properly. Schools rely on SS visits and feel reassured there are visits. SS rely on schools not flagging the smaller pieces of the puzzle. That’s how kids are missed, everyone being a bit concerned but no one acting. Introducing complacency through inadequate checks is about the worst thing we can do.

Either a quality funded system of support that functions, or as it is. Don’t offer out badges of assurance for no reason! A DBS and a report isn’t realistically going to save a single child, but it might shield one.

Where is this idea coming from that abusers are more likely to home school? I am sure some do, but surely most send their DC to school but with very poor attendance? That is certainly what I have always read/ heard.

You can opt out of having a HV though and obviously it is your choice whether or not you attend your GP. The only family I know who home school opted out of maternity care, free birthed, opted out of health visiting services etc. So who is safeguarding those children?

As it happens, this is a lovely family and I highly doubt anything sinister is going on, but its easy to see how families can go off grid. Maternity care offers an opportunity to observe for signs of DV at a time when it is most prevalent so opting right out of it is always a worry. But it is not statutory in the UK, people can opt out.

That being said, a DBS will do nothing to safeguard children.

This is dangerous on so many levels.

A DBS check of your past, becoming the sole arbiter of your current suitability to care for your own children.....

What about mental health? What about physical health? Should medical records be examined to assess your ability to care?

It's also a very short trip down the slippery slope to DBS for pregnant women. Would your husband or partner be forced to move out of they failed a DBS check? If you failed should you have to move out and leave your child behind?

Which offences are "unacceptable"? Where exactly is the line that if you've crossed it in the past the state confiscates your children? Remember this is for past, and not current behaviour.

I really wouldn't be putting my faith in state services that thinks girls should shut up for their own good when abuse is involved.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense.

Bit Jemima the "whataboutery" is very relevant here because where would they send a child if the LA decided that their parents aren't complying with the Education Act?

It's not relevant to the context it was raised in, which was, "But what about sexually abused children who do attend school and the school doesn't notice signs of abuse."

The point you raise is a very important one, it's just nothing to do with child abuse and how to monitor for it. School safeguarding systems might not be perfect but a huge amount of abuse and neglect is only spotted because the child is in school.

It's a bit like someone leaving their front door wide open then turning round and saying "but what about all those people whose homes were broken into despite locking their door!"

If you lock your door, you dramatically reduce the risk of being burgled. The fact some people get burgled despite locks doesn't mean you should just leave your door wide open.

If children are being seen by teachers every day, it dramatically reduces the risk of abuse going unnoticed. The fact some abuse gets overlooked despite being seen by teachers every day doesn't mean you should just have zero monitoring.

It tells me that nobody has compiled them. What does it tell you?

I don't know what the statistics are for home educated children.

Do the statistics exist? If not, what does that tell you?

Bit Jemima the "whataboutery" is very relevant here because where would they send a child if the LA decided that their parents aren't complying with the Education Act? They'd issue a school attendance order and make the child go to school. Many children are abused and bullied at school. Many don't learn what they are meant to learn (according to the NC) and schools that Ofsted deem are Inadequate are still allowed to stay open. So it's relevant to this discussion.

In 2020/21 about 70% of pupils in state funded mainstream English schools got at least a grade 5 in Maths and English. That means that 30% didn't get the grade (5) the government says children ought to get. I don't know what the statistics are for home educated children.

I'm glad you shared this. This sort thing does happen despite what some people think.

I didn't say that DBS was a good idea, I said there should be more checks on Home Ed children.
If anyone apart from his parents had seen Dylan in the year before he died, he would probably be alive now.
He was described as invisible by many.
A child practice review published in 2016 said it was "tragic that there are many references that the child was 'invisible'."
It's telling that there are no available photos of Dylan because so few people saw him.

All teachers, other school staff, even regular visitors to schools, have to have DBS checks. Homeschooling parents are just being treated the same as others involved in children's education.

Well, teenagers don't even have regular checkups with GPs!

Exactly!! That's why it's so frustrating to keep reading, "We don't need any kind of checks on children and teens who are removed from school because any child not having regular GP and dental checkups would be flagged to social services."

Literally on what planet would a dentist ever phone social services because a teen isn't making regular check ups?

But there are plenty of school children that are abused at home without anyone at school realising, so I can't see that a few LA visits a year is going to make any difference to most abused home educated children.

As someone who actually has personal first hand experience it would ABSOLUTELY save some children from abuse. If at any point even one single person had checked on me and been willing to listen to me I would have been rescued. 100%.

Maybe it won't save "most" but it will certainly save some. If it even saves one child from death or sex trafficking or a life of abuse, it's worthwhile. Surely?

Playing "but children attending school get abused too" card is just plain whatabouttery. Yes plenty of school-attending kids get abused and the school doesn't notice, but a huge amount of abuse and neglect gets picked up on because the child is in school.

If you’ve got no contact hits and no evidence of a suitable education provision then trigger a request for a wellbeing checkup so that children are seen

Seen by what kind of professional and for what purpose though? To check what the children know? That their learning is delivered according to their "age, ability and aptitude" ( a legal requirement) How they are feeling? If they are being abused?
The fact that you don't show evidence of a suitable education provision ( home educators don't have to do this) doesn't necessarily mean that the children's well being needs checking up on.
In a lot of these discussions people get education mixed up with safeguarding.

I wouldn’t design a system like that either, for those registered as educating otherwise a lack of hits from services ( even if quite inoccently due to great health and teeth !) would be of interest- care professionals have enough to do without tracking stuff themselves. The systems in place just need to connect. If you’ve got no contact hits and no evidence of a suitable education provision then trigger a request for a wellbeing checkup so that children are seen.
HE families can’t expect zero involvement from education/care services - but proportional and effective doesn’t look like blanket DBS checks to me.

Well, teenagers don't even have regular checkups with GPs! It's so hard to find an NHS dentist now and not everyone can afford to go private, so I don't think that a lack of dentist check-ups is necessarily a cause for concern either.

I don't know what the answer is. But there are plenty of school children that are abused at home without anyone at school realising, so I can't see that a few LA visits a year is going to make any difference to most abused home educated children.

Hmm, well the tone of this thread has certainly done a 180 from previous threads on this subject, where the idea of even a brief once a year check was received with quite a bit of hostility.

I think we all agree that the LEA fails children and that they need to do more all round.

I'm not willing to rely on a system that counts on GPs and dentists to call social services every time they notice that a teenager hasn't been booking regular checkups.

Jemima perhaps read my whole post. I said " I can't see how doing something that the law requires us to do can ever be a concern. "

It's not just about finding it unacceptable. It's perfectly legal to home educate.

No one has suggested otherwise?

Jebatronic has posted saying that LEAs should be regularly monitoring home educated children, but it's clear that many HEers object to any form of monitoring, even the absolute bare minimum to try to prevent a situation where parents and guardians can simply deregister a child and vanish entirely.

How can we reconcile some HEers objection to any kind of checks, without furthering a system where kids can vanish entirely without anyone noticing? If you want to keep kids from falling off the radar, you need checks.

Jemima you are posting based on your first hand experience, which was dreadful but I, and many others, are posting based on our first hand experience.

The Schools Bill, as drafted, is horrendous for children with SEN.

It seeks to criminalise parents who keep their children away from school because the schools are failing the child. For some children, often autistic children, the school environment is traumatic. Because the ultimate aim of the government of more than the last decade is to cut costs there is often no school that is suitable for these children. It is not always home where children face harm.

Doing a DBS check or any other check isn't going to 'fix' a broken SEN system which is ultimately is what rocket launches many families into home ED. Under the Schools Bill, as drafted, many more vulnerable children will be home educated because the alternative to de-registration is criminal fines or imprisonment, often of the mother!

I mentioned upthread that the idea of checks is a complete joke. My son left the school system 5 years ago 'known' to agencies for mental health issues caused by the school. No one has ever checked what kind of education he receives.

Of course the most vulnerable children need protecting and of course it's not always obvious who those children are but there are tens of thousands of children who the government does know are displaced because of sen, rather than supporting them it actively encourages LAs to break the law to continue to fail these children. If I hadn't seen the lengths to which children are being actively failed by the state when it comes to education I wouldn't believe it.

So yes some form of checks need to take place but not at the expense of diverting funding to create a list from fixing the system which is creating large numbers of home educated children who are not being home educated for ideological reasons. It definitely suits the government that families are forced to deregister SEN children, it costs them less.

Unless the decision to HE is inherently a flag for monitoring (which clearly some posters find unacceptable), it's incredibly easy for someone with no prior SS involvement to simply deregister a child from school and vanish. That needs to be changed. DBS isn't the answer, but maybe standardised monitoring is

It's not just about finding it unacceptable. It's perfectly legal to home educate. As I pointed out earlier according to the Education Act parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are educated. I can't see how doing something that the law requires us to do can ever be a concern.
If people want more monitoring the law will have to change.

I appreciate that, I really do. There just seems to be such a huge gulf in experiences here, especially in terms of LEA involvement.

Lack of evidence that a suitable education is being provided to the LEA ( They should be requesting this and mostly do. )

I agree with this, I think it raises the question what level of LEA monitoring is reasonable, and what level of regular monitoring will the HE community accept?

We've already seen that some LEAs are completely hands off and do zero monitoring, don't request any evidence or perform even an annual check. While other LEAs are overly aggressive in their monitoring and demanding proof (which makes good HEers feel oppressed and incites hostility towards LEAs).

Child not been regularly seen somewhere in the system e.g. Medical, Dental, Youth services etc

But what system? What specifically does this mean with regard to a teenager? What "youth services" would you expect a teenager with no prior SS involvement to be going to? (I honestly have no idea what "youth services" even means - like a kind of Byker Grove youth club?) Ditto GP, unlike very young children who have regular checkups and vaccinations, teens mainly go to the GP only when they're ill or injured. On what planet is a healthy teenager "not being regularly seen by GP" going to be an SS flag?

Unless the decision to HE is inherently a flag for monitoring (which clearly some posters find unacceptable), it's incredibly easy for someone with no prior SS involvement to simply deregister a child from school and vanish. That needs to be changed. DBS isn't the answer, but maybe standardised monitoring is.

Sorry, triple posting ! I didn’t answer your question “what is going to trigger an SS check?”

1. Lack of evidence that a suitable education is being provided to the LEA ( They should be requesting this and mostly do. )


2. Child not been regularly seen somewhere in the system e.g. Medical, Dental, Youth services etc

Jemima, I also did note your comment about getting abuse for adding your account of your personal experience to the debate. Abuse is unjustifiable, feelings run high when our children are involved - but that is no excuse.
It sounds like you have done an incredible job of turning your life around and have played your part in the world for positive HE.
I think some HE families who have had bad experiences often find it difficult to trust in authority and there will always be some who have an ideological view on state involvement. Personally I hear a lot but meet few. The families I meet are mostly are just getting on with a good solution in an imperfect system.

"Your educational circumstances and/or lack of involvement with other services should have red flagged SS for further checks ( potentially including DBS checking)"

Sorry for double posting but I think this is the thing, really.

People think that abuse only happens in certain types of families but it can happen anywhere.

Realistically, if you have a situation like mine with an academically successful nearly-teen from a middle class, affluent household where no one has ever been on SS radar, no one has ever had any involvement with SS or police, what about that is is going to trigger an SS check, other than the decision to home educate itself?

Plenty of posters have said "the decision to HE shouldn't be a flag for SS" but what if that is the ONLY flag? I've seen a few posts suggesting that abuse only happens in families known to SS, but that's just a myth and it's a lie people tell themselves so they can feel more comfortable. Plenty of abuse and neglect happens in 'naice' middle class families that have never been on SS radar. Who protects those kids?

You say lack of involvement with other services, but it's pretty normal for a teenager to go years without needing to see a GP. It's not like babies where they have vaccinations and regular checks. Okay yeah teens should go to the dentist regularly, but I'm sure tons of parents of teens aren't dragging them to the dentist as regularly as they should, that wouldn't be an SS flag and it's not like there's some national record of dental appointments.

So really what "other services" would you expect a middle class teenager to be regularly engaging with, the absence of which would trigger an SS check?