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

No one is routinely checking babies and toddlers are they?

My 3 year old saw a GP for the first and last time at the 6-8 week check. I recall a HV popping in when she was a week or two old. She is basically unknown to any kind of system until she starts school. I don’t know anyone who has routinely seen GPs and HVs after the newborn stage other than children with health problems who regularly need to see doctors.

I don’t think DBS checks are the way to go but I do see the reason it is suggested. I wouldn’t be against someone having to check I am vaguely competent as a parent and not displaying any red flags … EXCEPT that I can see it becoming a bit of a minefield (plus who on earth would be checking up on every single child in the U.K.?).

@DontLookBackInAnger1
That's what I'm saying.
My home educated kids are only LEFT at regular groups run by professional people who run groups for other children's sessions (often after school type clubs which can run in the day for home Ed kids for example). For example tutors, bushcraft groups, sports groups etc that ARE run by people WITH all the relevant checks.

The only other kind of home Ed groups I have ever come across are those run by parents who also home educate. They are NOT drop off sessions. They are sessions where either the parents also take part, or where the parents watch/chat in the same room. So checks then aren't necessary.

Play dates, however, happen for school children and home Ed kids in the same way. I only leave my kids when I know the parents. As most parents who school educate do.

Recently a local man was found guilty of having indecent images of children. He ran a soft play type place for children that was all days and weekends. Not drop off sessions. Parentally supervised sessions with a cafe etc. He had a DBS check. I'm not saying that because there were home Ed sessions there. There weren't. It was just a run of the mill soft play place. People have plenty of opportunity. They don't need to find home Ed groups to get that.

If the checks don't detect sufficient numbers of abusers, should we also do away with them for teachers and scout leaders etc?

I largely agree with this. It's an expensive, too-broad-to-be-useful, too-easily-circumvented way to achieve better safeguarding for children pulled out of school.

I think there should definitely be any/better checks to replace the (mostly good) safety net of regular school attendance but this isn't it.

All the abuse cases I can think of, the parents would have passed a DBS check. Anyone with a speck of critical thinking must see that this is a waste of money that is very unlikely to benefit anyone. I can only assume the government want to deter people from home education by the inference that they are abusers and the stigma and hassle of having to be vetted etc. It’s very naive to think that it would stop at a simple DBS check, this is only the stage one.

Our la don't do yearly checks, only checks done are if there is a safeguarding concern

I wonder what the threshold of convictions would be to still be able to homeschool?! Surely any conviction of violent crime or abuse would already be noted and the parents would be monitored etc anyway? I don't see what a dbs is going to achieve and I say this as someone who works in child safeguarding. Also, who is paying for the dbs? What happens if they refuse?

It is totally unfair.

@MrsAvocet if they are done directly through the government and not through a (cheaper) third party they are transferable. I had mine transferred for my last job as it was less than a year old. However the enhanced one I had done by a voluntary organisation wasn't transferable as it was done by a (cheaper) third party.

But there's a distinct difference between offering to have a child for a once in a blue moon playdate and someone who seeks to home educate so they can exploit vulnerable children. One is a random, short term event. The other is a planned out, long term arrangement.

I know it's extremely rare but some people do target the education and social care sectors directly to have access to children for exploitative reasons.

Personally I'd love to know every adult they're ever left with is DBS checked, that would be the gold standard of safety wouldn't it, that's possible anyway. But obviously that's unrealistic.

But given the amount of people who home ed is relatively small, and the added risk factors of having unsupervised, long term exposure to children outside of their family, I would have thought home ed parents would welcome it! I know I would.

So, logically, you are saying that parents are not to be trusted around their own children.

Obviously, 'safeguarding trained adults' with DBS checks have never abused children before.

Except for Vanessa George, Jayden McCarthy, Josh Doherty, Julie and David Morris, Paul Shinn, Mark Blackie etc etc

Yes, I agree that there are children who have mental health issues who are no longer attending a school. And some who have been failed by local authorities in regards to EHCP provision or other duties.

Nobody knows how many because there hasn't been a national system of monitoring and checks to ascertain why - and if nobody knows who, where or why, nobody can help - whether that is by providing alternative education, MH support, family support, obtaining EHCPs or ticking off a box to say the child is receiving a great education from an engaged and proactive parent - if nobody looks, nobody can say why or how many are.

The data gathering could actually provide evidence to inform and support better approaches towards educating and safeguarding children such as those - without good data, it's like blaming cholera on bad luck because there's no evidence to suggest that there's a problem with a particular area's water supply because nobody's looked so can't see geographical distribution.

There are also children who have either been withdrawn from school under the guise of elective home education or were not enrolled in the first place for the benefit of an abuser. And children who aren't actually in the country anymore, whether happy with family, trafficked, infibulated, forced into marriage or, frankly, dead.

It's not safe to continue to shrug our shoulders and say 'well, I'm sure the parent is doing a grand job, even though we don't even know for certain if the child is there. Abusers, radicalised people and some who just can't parent or educate effectively also claim to be home educating. This won't solve everything, but if it flags up a few children who are in danger from someone in their household, that's lives saved.

@axolotlfloof again reports were made about Dylan. The education officials who were refused access made the decision to not escalate it to SS/Police protection. Both his parents would pass a DBS. Only a dedicated HE team would have been any use, but Wales can't fund one. Our government won't fund services which keep children alive.

This is an interesting proposition. I am not sure whether a DBS would prevent abuse, however, things like criminal records may show up.

I have experience of children safeguarding. In my experience children of pre-school are the most vulnerable because they don't really come in contact with services. It true that they have contact with GP and health visitors. However, they are less likely than schools and other agencies to make safeguarding referral particularly GP. Even children are missing health checks or when health professional know the parents have a history, referral are not made. Generally. they only make referral when there is very overt signs such injuries etc

The majority of safeguarding come via schools and nursery as they have regular contact with children and usually are more experienced at spotting worrying signs. Referral often come from agencies the parents have been in contact with such as police etc

In my experience most safeguarding comes via school and nursery. I appreciate most parents who home school there children are not abusive, it is important to appreciate that it easier to conceal abuse if children are home school. Please note even if people see home school, most people would not actually spot signs of abuse unless it very overt.

@NeverDropYourMooncup in the recent cases of children who've been murdered, the people responsible would have passed a DBS. In Arthur and Stars case, they were seen by inadequate SWs. In both cases SS were being badgered by the families and chose to dismiss them. In the case of Debbie Leitch (a vulnerable adult) she was let down by a doctor and services. Her Mother would have passed a DBS.
This is another one of those easy suggestions that sound good on paper, but do nothing. It'll be adopted by a government who doesn't give a shit about child welfare, especially WC child welfare.
We need a dedicated team team for HE, or rather children who've been suddenly removed from schools. But then, we have so many children out of school because of a lack of SEN provision, failing schools and bullying, the government doesn't want that under the spotlight. What are we going to do about families who've arrived in the UK? Because there's plenty of countries were sexual crimes and child abuse doesn't see the perpetrator charged. So a DBS means nothing, until they are caught doing something in the UK.

A DBS check is a hammer to cut a plank of wood. There should be an educational contact for HE children where they can be seen in a centre ( like a local library or sports hall ) where they can be encouraged to get to know the facilities and mix with other HE children. For those unhappy with that, a home visit or note on medical /dental records to be aware of fewer opportunities for contact could work better. A much higher number than average proportion children in HE have additional medical needs ( unmet needs are a very common reason for HE ).

I suspect that the very vulnerable children most people are concerned about are more likely not to have been registered with the LA in the first place - perhaps that would be a better place to concentrate resources.

A compulsory DBS check is a level scrutiny not appropriate for parents who have not behaved in a way to attract concern - HE is a rightful option in this country and should not attract prejudice - For those who don’t see a thin end of a wedge looming I would encourage some reflection on what other family choices could be seen as undesirable in future.
I say the above as someone who is HEing a child after initially choosing many years of conventional school. I have gladly chosen to be DBS checked for volunteering (passed) but would not like to live in a society where exercising my legal and legitimate parental choices resulted in a compulsory check that puts my family under a level of scrutiny that in itself might prejudice other care or access decisions. As A&E frequent flyers (lifetime medical issue, don’t get excited!) The “are you known to social services” question always crops up so let’s not pretend that there is nothing to be cautious about.

Most other parents are an unresolvable extended period of bullying, unexpected medical issue, mental health episode or whatever cause away from deciding to HE for the sake of their child. Then with a parental DBS check established as precedent in safeguarding children when a legitimate but minority choice is made, extension to other choices is no big deal. ( E.g. I have always chosen to vaccinate so far, but don’t intend to always agree no matter what. I want to decide, even though I will probably always say yes. )

As others have said, the scope of a check can be adjusted very easily, and I couldn’t even tell you what would fail a person now. Does violence include that pushy scuffle episode out side a club in someone’s youth or drugs include a caution for joining in with weed at uni that unlucky time ?
I am alright (as in not significantly affected) with this proposal, it does not mean that I’m happy to pull up the ladder though.

For saying they have GPs and dentists, lots of kids never see a GP (my 2 haven't) and lots of children aren't registered with a dentist. Plus people who deliberately home school for the purposes of committing abuse they also restrict the childrens access to things like health care professionals. It is only when the child needs emergency treatment that they come in to contact with main stream services.

I doubt DBS checks would do much for these groups though.

He wasn't invisible.

How often and what kind if checks do you think the LA should do?
What kind of checks do schools do?

Absolutely. Preventing homeschooling, I agree, is not a massive factor in preventing child abuse as a whole. Such a large change in social services would require considerable planning/refinement/expenditure. It's not something that could really be sneaked through, nor should it be.

Child abuse will never be completely prevented- if someone is hell bent on abusing their child and concealing it from authorities, it's quite difficult to stop them.

However, the vast majority of families who child protection social workers end up dealing with are not malicious criminal masterminds. They are people rendered unable to provide a suitable environment for children due to drug/alcohol addictions, debilitating mental illness, existing trauma from their own families etc. This is far less difficult to identify- often because there isn't too much attempt to conceal it. You wouldn't require massively invasive background checks to identify a significant number of at-risk children early on. You could then firstly attempt to help the parent(s) or, if that is beyond possibility, protect the child early on.

The current system where children are only removed from dangerous environments (and the bar isn't exactly high for parents in that regard) after years of trauma and neglect is a far from ideal one.

Absolutely this.
There is not enough checks on home educated children.
Some are entirely invisible.
That poor boy Dylan in Wales who had no access to medical care of any kind and died from treatable and preventable Scurvy for example.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/dylan-seabridge-scurvy-crymych-eglwyswrw-18980972.amp

This.

This!

what are they trying to achieve? Is it that the child is not being abused OR that the child is receiving an appropriate education OR both?

dbs may be a rough screen to check if a child is at risk. BUT it will not detect if a child is currently being abused and it won’t give any indication of the education. The time between the last health visitor check at like 1-2yrs old and school starting is pretty big - so every kid that is not in nursery should probably be checked.
Why not do a child well-being check for the kids who have not been seen by any services that year (or 2 years, or whatever interval)?

dbs system is a bit silly - because you need different levels for different jobs, they are non transferable between different posts. Sounds like a poorly designed, inefficient system.

For education: why not give meetings at different stages (eg key stage 1 end, before secondary school, before gcse courses start, before a level courses start)?
Then give kids and families information about these usual ‘milestones’ - offer them help, advice, options, exam centres (Bering in mind the usual timescale of 10gcses by 16 may not be appropriate for every kid).
As the child grows, they should be able to decide more about what education they would like.

Exactly. What would also help is making sure that children don't grow up to become abusers

We do

we have the local authority check every year. Or they should be doing so. So that’s already in place.