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

But they do care, there are health visits, and the doctor gets to see the children for vaccinations too.

Your argument really is facile, you are implying that if the system is not perfect, and doesn;t cover every child from birth then it's not worth doing.

You know that that makes no sense, so why post it?

Then perhaps don't even mention it. Why would you say that abusive parents "may" be more likely to home educate? What are you basing that on?

Of course it tells you something. It tells you that they are the sort of person who feels no problem doing great harm to others, and suggests that they really need to be closely loked at.

No-one with a serious criminal background should be allowed to keep their children out of school.

And yet no one cares about this person being the sole carer for the first five years, or for the other 18 hours a day.

So you're not allowed to teach reading and writing and all the rest, because you're a bad person, but the other 138 hours a week, crack on, social services have no concern.

Of course it tells you something. It tells you that they are the sort of person who feels no problem doing great harm to others, and suggests that they really need to be closely loked at.

No-one with a serious criminal background should be allowed to keep their children out of school.

Maybe it could assess the risk of parents training their children up to be petty thieves, like a modern day, home-schooling Fagin? First lesson, "You've got to pick a pocket or twooo".

Prove that something "may" be the case? That's not something amenable to proof.

This is the issue I mention above, some of those in favour of home-schooling seem to lack even basic comprehension skills, and yet think that they should be allowed to just get on with "educating" their poor children without outside interference.

It's the other way round. Abusive parents may be more likely to take their children out of school, and use the excuse of home schooling to cover for it.

If a child is being kept out of sight of opthers in this way then I don't think that additional checks are unwarranted.

Fine, but what do you think a DBS will show? If they're guilty of child abuse / neglect that's in SS not Education. If they got caught breaking and entering 10 years ago it tells you nothing.

Notmycircus Khyra Ishaq wasn't home educated.

It could trigger visits by social services, or the parents could be required to send their child to school.

Given the astounding lack of critical thinking displayed on here by some who seem to home-school, this is probably quite a good idea in many cases.

I also think DBS checks are the most cost effective way for our appalling government to make it look like they're protecting children, when they should be funding proper checks and home education support.

Can you prove this please?

Trouble is that if they can't read they can't access most of the rest of the curriculum, beyond a certain age.

How long do you let it go on, attributing it to being a "late bloomer" rather than educational neglect? And by the time it's realised it's educational neglect, if it is, is there still time for the child to catch up with their peers?

At least with schoolchildren falling behind there's a few professionals who can give a realistic appraisal of what's happening (e.g. spotting dyslexia), and who have the skills to put in place remedial steps.

When genuinely illiterate gypsy and traveller parents are allowed to claim they're home educating their children from age 11, we have a problem, and those children are being failed by absolutely everyone.

A lot of the time it's not the kids in HE groups etc who are the issue. It's the families who claim their child is home educated, while providing no education whatsoever, only a religious education, or as a means to reduce the chances abuse will be picked up by a professional (as happened with Khyra Ishaq).

I really don't see how DBS checks will help. It only shows past crimes and even then, some people are never caught.

There should be proper checks for home educated children. Abusive parents may take their children out of formal education to disguise abuse.

It's more that they've thought it through in more detail to you, and understand that people take their childrn out of school for various reasons, some of which need to be checked on.

It's the other way round. Abusive parents may be more likely to take their children out of school, and use the excuse of home schooling to cover for it.

If a child is being kept out of sight of opthers in this way then I don't think that additional checks are unwarranted.

Not even that. It's up to an employer whether they employ people with a criminal record, the DBS just shows if they have one.

The only time I can see it being of use is to if someone has a conviction for running an illegal school.

Makes me laugh really.

My kids were unsafe in school because their SEN needs were not being met.

We were desperate for help and were abandoned by the 'state' and left to get on with it. No school to meet need, inadequate mental health care, no access to autism support.

No one in the LA has ONCE checked on my children which is astounding since my eldest was trying to kill himself when he came out of school at 10 years old as he was so traumatised.

This and the planned Bill which will criminalise parents who refuse to send children to school where they are unsafe is massively missing the point that SEN funding is woeful and is pushing families with vulnerable children into home education.

We are the one of the wealthiest economies yet we fail to educate our most vulnerable children then attempt to criminalise parents left with the fall out.

Disgraceful.

Yes but how will a DBS check help?

Surely abusive parents are already on authorities' radar if they've committed previous abuse. If they haven't committed or been caught committing previous abuse, it won't show up on a check.

my experience of home schooling is well rounded children, well socialised and academically achieving in line with interests/future careers.

Personally I think it’s sensible, it’s likely a child of a parent with serious crimes will need the balance and routine of school.

however most parents homeschooling won’t have serious criminal convictions and will be centring their child’s needs and learning.

Because if children are in school there is more chance someone will pick up on abuse, I suppose.

great post

NotMyCircusNotMyCircus - the problem with basic standards is something like reading could legitimately be taught at a later age (as it is in other countries) so you might not meet the basic standard at 5 but exceed it at 8. It would be very difficult without being prescriptive. It also means what happens to the many children in school not meeting the basic standards? Do they automatically get sent to a better school? My son didnt meet the basic standards until about year 5. No SEN just a bit of a late bloomer. If I had home taught him he'd have been sent to school at that point

Basic standards - a reasonable level of literacy, numeracy, scientific understanding and so on appropriate to their age (and any SN). Reasonable should broadly correlate to being on a trajectory to be able to get through their GCSEs, but not so prescriptive as to say, for example, that they have to study Soviet Russia in history.

In person assessments annually by a qualified teacher (perhaps more often when the child is first home educated). If they're not reaching a basic standard in HE then clearly it's not working well enough for that child and an alternative approach - a school place - should be required at that moment.

Some children are failed at school, some children are failed in HE. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it doesn't give parents the right to fail their HE child.

HE can be done right, but sometimes it's used as an excuse for letting the child leave education altogether (e.g. gypsy & traveller children who are invariably registered as home educated from age 11, and learn nothing from their often illiterate parents), for full time religious instruction instead of the broad and balanced curriculum they should be getting (e.g. yeshiva, where the pupils are invariably registered as home educated), or letting the child do whatever the hell they feel like ("unschooling" - don't enjoy maths? Sure you don't need to do it...)

Home education can be done well or it can be done badly. If you're worried that your child isn't reaching basic standards of literacy and numeracy, or that your 12 year old thinks the world is flat, or doesn't know what photosynthesis is... then you probably shouldn't be home educating in the first place.

2 years home educating. We have never submitted anything, never been asked to prove work. Genuinely zero contact from the LA except 2 emails sent to everyone on their list about some holiday thing and an inappropriate college course. I would actually like more contact, but they're just not interested.

I agree more protection is needed for children who may fall off the grid, I don't think dbs checks are the way forward.