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

Rhoda Grant MSP once said there should be a 9pm watershed on the internet for chrissakes.

😁 I mean, I could be a lot more productive.

Home Ed Mum here.
Not Rtft but just popped on to say that this is very unlikely to happen.
Baroness Garden was scrutinising some proposed legislation about a register of Home educated children.
The draft bill (which I have read) doesn't mention DBS checks anywhere and noone is going to write a section into it because of Baroness Gardens remarks.
Politicians come out with daft and unpractical ideas in debates all the time and nothing comes of it. If it's not written into the bill, it's not on the table. Rhoda Grant MSP once said there should be a 9pm watershed on the internet for chrissakes.
It's also possible that Baroness Garden meant that Home Ed parents should have a DBS check to run a meet up or an activity involving other people's kids. Rather than needing a DBS check to take care of their own kids at home! Which would be a more sensible proposition (although still not in the bill)

U too the next child whom is murdered by a parent is in the news,then everyone will say that the authorities should have done more to protect that child.

So if you "fail" the DBS are you not allowed to home educate, or do you just have to submit to a DBS regardless of the outcome?

The only thing it seems to achieve really well is to let home educators know that they will be subject to a level of suspicion not endured by any other parent without meeting any marker of risky behaviour.

I think that's why some people like it.

I don't understand what the purpose of this is to be honest. Unless it's to say that anyone & everyone"working" with any children must be treated in the same way. Surely it's not going to solve any issues around potential or current abuse in the home?

I suppose it's conceivable that someone who would not pass a DBS check could have their own children at some point after doing whatever it was, and then decide to home educate? Which might flag up a few potentially vulnerable children.

I can't see why you need a DBS to educate your child. They have nothing to do with education.

Absolutely bang on. Empty token gesture.

Also as a teacher I'm against anything that removes parents rights to home educate. If our education system was evidence based, child centred and free from political meddling from every whim of a minister wanting to make his mark then there might be at least an argument against home Ed. But as it stands I can fully understand parents wishes to do it.

It's pointless and stupid. It isn't going to protect any children. At best it's going to create a lot more unnecessary work for the LEA Home Ed officers who generally only cover HE as a side job anyway and increase referrals to already over-burdened social services as a precaution.

If they honestly wanted to protect children they'd be making huge investments into social services who are massively overstretched, overworked etc but they won't.

The public, by and large, will agree with it because it won't affect them. They don't think they'll ever be in a situation where they'll be forced to use the lifeboat that is HE because their child is bullied, unwell, failed by school, have SEND or in need of mental health support.

Too many people in this thread have totally misunderstood what a DBS check is. The reasoning proposed, as I understand it, suggests every parent and individual who has contact with a child should be DBS checked. It makes absolutely no sense to DBS check home educators…they are simply parents like all other parents.

The LA regularly checking in with a home educated kid is completely different thing to a DBS check. People should aware they are completely different types of intervention/safeguarding.

@DontLookBackInAnger1

I don't have a major issue with a DBS check. I just feel that there is a lot of 'home educators are weird and either crazy religious or child abusers'.

I think DBS checks are pointless for parents. Neglectful parents won't be picked up on a DBS. Sexual predators, unless already caught, won't be picked up. If people have been caught previously abusing or for radicalisation etc then they will already be under observation I would hope!

I think it's more important that children are seen in the community. If a child isn't seen by a dr, dentist, some form of 'outside of the family' groups etc. that's a worry.
But they aren't suggesting DBS checks for people not attending the drs with children, or missing health visitor appointments (not that my second was ever seen by one unless I requested it).

I just think it's a box ticking exercise to cover official arses. The money could be spent on social care, child centres, support for children suffering mental health issues in schools, support for children who are more 'square pegs in a round hole'.

Are you sure about this? A parent educating their own child at home cannot be subject to a DBS check without making the same requirement of everyone who shares a dwelling with a child. Criminals have children. Sex offenders and shoplifters have children. Drug addicts, drunks and dangerous drivers have children. What possible sanction could there be?

If you don't work in social services or a relevant sector (and I apologise if you do) then the abuse cases you'll be thinking of are the few which make the news. Often those which are deliberate, malicious, and have been purposely concealed from social services/school/GP.

They aren't representative of the majority of child abuse cases. The ones which are noticed and acted upon by social services generally involve at least one parent who presents obvious problems and would likely not pass a DBS check. This might be substance abuse or extreme mental health problems. Quite often a parent does have prior convictions (or someone else with access to the child- mum's boyfriend for example- has them).

DBS checks are not in any way wholly sufficient for identifying potentially dangerous people, but I think it's wrong to say they'd have no impact. In any case, the answer would surely be more stringent checks rather than none at all.

If you home educate your own child you shouldn't need a DBS but if you're teaching others (say a study group) then you should be DBS'ed like people who run activities for children.

Is there no backlog of DBS checks? What happens if you "fail"? Presumably some parents have been to prison or have convictions.

The amount of safeguarding concerns and alerts that come through schools is unbelievable. Truly.

Then, imagine what's going on in families where the parents know there's no eyes on them.

The most basic right of a child is safety. And if checking parents of children who are potentially isolated can increase that safety, even marginally, surely that's a positive step, for those kids.

Sahps with small children are technically still under the health review team via things like 2 year check etc.

If a parent refuses all contact with HVs, doesnt send a child for vaccines, and there are other warning signs, HV team can look for ways to introduce other support.

I find it quite depressing that so many HE parents seem to think that their right to privacy trumps the rights of children to be safe.

DBS of course is not perfect or fool proof, but it is ONE tool we have alongside others. A child being seen regularly in school is a massive safeguard, which we know because of the numbers of children about whom concerns are raised by teachers. If you take that away, you need to replace it somehow.
And no, I don't think regularly attending HE groups is an adequate replacement - people can never believe that their nice, well spoken friend/neighbour might be abusing a child.

Having worked in the public sector, I can assure you, they won't be introducing this as a way of spending money they don't have.

It will be because evidence, data, examples, show that children, registered as being home educated, are at a great risk of abuse. I think many on this thread opposing it are home educators in the truest sense. You are providing your kids with a safe, secure and effective education.

But it's naive and ignorant to not see there are other examples of "home educated" children who don't receive a quality education and who aren't in safe or secure environments. They are "home educated" to avoid authority intervention and to have unchecked access to vulnerable children. For those situations, DBS checking the parents is a good idea. Lots of abusers will have other offenses that may trigger LAs to have a closer look into the set up/family.

These days you need DBS for so many things anyway! I have to have one for: being on parent committee for the local nursery school (no contact with the kids), anything involving going into kids school, lots of jobs request them almost just in case.

It's really not intrusive and as a pp said, adds to the scrutiny reflecting that sadly home ed has a record of being used as a cover for abuse.

Remember. A kid attending school is seen, they are on the radar with people outside the home.

A home ed kid has the potential to be invisible to outside help.

I think I did a terrible job of formatting that post and amalgamated my post with another posters. I'm saying if you think any child who isn't in regular contact with a paid safeguarder - as is the case for homeschoolers- it makes sense that you would have to apply this logic to sahps with small children, as they are in the same boat. And that is clearly a ridiculous proposition.

I don't think that DBS checks would be particularly useful, but I do think that the LA should carry out regular checks on all home educated children. Someone outside of the family should be keeping an eye on these kids.

They should find other ways to monitor the home schooled child such as a review meeting and medical . I don't think DBS will meet the aim of protecting the child from being invisible and being abused at home

But why, if a child has only one check up visit a year from the LA, if any, do you think it's a bad idea to have another safeguarding measure in place?

I can see your point, but I don't understand why you're actively against it? When surely you acknowledge that not all children who are registered as home educated are actually home educated in the manner that you describe. Do you acknowledge that some are "home educated" to exploit and avoid institutions picking up on abuse?

They can help keep people out of those areas who have already been caught and convicted of something or where suitable suspicions have been raised. It is only a small part of the overall child protection though. The two people I know who have been convicted of offences against children both where in roles where they will have had a clear DBS check. One of them concerns where ignored because they where nice and has a clean dbs.

When it comes to home Ed if a family member has concerns against them severe enough to flag on a dbs to suggest they shouldn’t be home educating then they should already been known to services anyway!

Not RTFT but I'm guessing it's because there won't be a chance for the school to pick up on any signs if the child doesn't attend school, so they basically become invisible and forgotten.