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

It seems to have escaped the attention of many that we all have a duty of safeguarding.
If I had a neice/nephew/neighbour who I saw daily/regularly and then all of a sudden I never saw them, I would wonder why. Had I said something? Could the child be being abused? If I had genuine concern I would speak to someone.

So even if a child is removed simply to abuse them (And I truly believe that never would happen - the child was most likely already being abused), they may be hidden, but the signs are there and should be picked up by those around the child.

I find it depressing that so many women are happy to subject a minority to unnecessary scrutiny, with no evidence base to support the need for it - while complacently thinking it won't happen to their kids.
If someone in parliament suggested that kids with, for instance, single parents needed to have these additional checks, insinuating that single mothers were more likely to abuse their kids, would you all continue to be so complacent? Will you all wait until you're directly affected before you think, oh %$, maybe we shouldn't have sneered at home educators who pointed out the over-reach of local authorities. It'll be too late by then. The precedent will have been set.

I know what home edders do.

I did it for a time with ds!

Some are home and some attend lots of groups - that's the beauty. You follow a learning trend that suits you.

What I'm saying is there are ethical implications but seeing children is a far better resource to judge their wellbeing and safeguard them than a dbs for their parents. A dbs shows nothing other than they've never been convicted.

If you did a dbs for all parents (even those who send their child to state or private education) it wouldn't show a child was safe from abuse. Again - it would only show their parents don't have convictions.

I'm arguing as a stand alone tool it's not enough. Those children seen in schools have an extra layer as adults are observing them.

What do you think home educators actually do? I’ve seen a few people suggest visits - we often aren’t in! We spend a lot of time educating our kids out of doors, and it doesn’t always look like education in the traditional sense (because so many think education is sitting at a desk with a pen and book). So I’m not sure visits would be a useful way of determining anything.

What lovely** I'd have checks. So you could have people going round. Observing the children and actually seeing their interactions with adults and others.

Or any measures where a child is actually seen.

Although this poses a lot of ethical dilemmas.

A DBS just shows you haven't been convicted of something. It doesn't mean you aren't a risk.

Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr would have been dbs checked to work in a school.

I saw someone suggest “random surprise home visits” which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of home ed as half the time we wouldn’t be in! It’s also discriminatory since schools get a warning.

How exactly would you"check for safeguarding"?

I think DBS checks in general are pretty pointless as they only flag up if someone’s been caught, however I think it’s massively different comparing DBS checks for jobs (which yes I still think are pointless) to DBS checks for educating your own child (which is downright offensive)

it’s a back door ban, or an attempt at one. They want to increase regulation until it becomes impossible for us to educate children the way we want to because they’ll demand we adhere to school at home, examinations, curriculum requirements. They won’t allow for child led learning or for us to select the topics. This is part of an attempt to standardise all learning, which initially sounds okay until you investigate how it affects kids with SEN (both diagnosed and undiagnosed), or kids who’s mental health suffers rapidly in a school based system. Many of us home educate because our children have SEN

Well , yes, but the vast vast majority of those children will be attending school.

authoritarian regulations

FFS, the most minimum, basic safeguarding checks is not "authoritarian regulations".

This is like someone who lost their legs in a surfing accident demanding swimming in the sea being banned. Hyperbolic and ridiculous.

No one is trying to "ban" home education (the only way such a silly and hyperbolic statement would make sense). It's more akin to someone who'd had their leg bitten off by a shark lobbying to install lifeguards in areas known to be inhabited by sharks, so they can give a quick glance at the water to see if there are sharks actively chomping on people before letting kids dive in.

Those are career choices, not looking after your own child.

But you haven't answered whether you believe that all teachers and medical staff are treated like criminals.

So you have no issue with an increasingly authoritarian approach in the name of “safeguarding” in multiple areas?

No, I don't. Safeguarding needs to be robust and adhered to.

The dbs check isn't an issue imo.

Home educated children should be checked for safeguarding.

All a dbs does is highlight if someone has a conviction.

No, I’m saying that the sources and statistics referenced aren’t biased

“Everything I don’t like is biased”

I'm sorry, are you seriously claiming that a pro-Home Education lobbyist group named "Education Heretics" are not biased even the tiniest bit towards home education?

Those are career choices, not looking after your own child.

Minimum basic monitoring is not "treating everyone like a criminal."

All teachers need DBS checks, do you think all teachers are treated like criminals?

All doctors and medical staff need DBS checks, do you think all medical staff are treated like criminals?

All actors and crew on TV shows and films that have characters played by child actors need DBS checks (many actors and crew have DBS checks as standard because otherwise they'd only be able to be easily work on productions that solely had adult characters), do you think all TV stars are treated like criminals?

“Everything I don’t like is biased”

You’re projecting hard because of your terrible experience. Which I’m very sorry for, but you don’t have a right to demand authoritarian regulations on the rest of us just because you are in a minority of people who suffered. This is like someone who lost their legs in a surfing accident demanding swimming in the sea being banned. Hyperbolic and ridiculous.

The study I linked you to contains multiple sources and references, including stats from the DfE, but sure complain about the way it looks.

It's not a "study" it's a webpage written by a pro-Home Education lobby (and apparently by a "barrester").

So basically, prejudice against people who don’t like the typical 9-5 standard societally deemed normal lifestyle.

Don't be ridiculous. You're really comparing children not being fed who are left to fend for themselves and receive zero education with people who just "don't do standard 9-5 lifestyles"?

Maybe you should talk to actual Survivors, since you clearly never have.

Those are some interesting scenarios you’ve made up

Not made up. Personal experience and people I know well.

but you yourself admit there’s no evidence of these
Don't put words in my mouth. There is evidence - just not proper statistics or data, since there's such much aggression from parts of the HE community against any form of monitoring or records or anything that would generate that data.

Hmm I wonder why some HEers are so desperate for there to be no record of how many HE children are abused.

So you have no issue with an increasingly authoritarian approach in the name of “safeguarding” in multiple areas? I despair. You lot get the society you deserve, it’s just unfortunate for the rest of us.

So let’s treat everyone as a potential criminal because a small number of people are.

Otherwise know as safeguarding 101

So let’s treat everyone as a potential criminal because a small number of people are. What a sensible approach

Of course children are people. But they are not wards of the state.

GPs are merely one example of where home educated children are already registered.

Here we go - “chaotic” families. So basically, prejudice against people who don’t like the typical 9-5 standard societally deemed normal lifestyle. Those are some interesting scenarios you’ve made up, but you yourself admit there’s no evidence of these - if you believe we should have to prove that isn’t happening by checks, should everyone have to be checked annually by the police to ensure they aren’t committing any crimes? What about to ensure they’re feeding their children?

The study I linked you to contains multiple sources and references, including stats from the DfE, but sure complain about the way it looks.

The vast, vast majority of children are raised by parents who love them.

Yet the vast, vast majority of children who are raped, murdered, beaten, abused, starved, are victimised by their parents.

It's worrying how many people seem to believe they have complete and total ownership over their children, as though the children are not people in their own right.

They are registered at birth, they see doctors, opticians etc.

Why do people keep banging on about GPs? How often would you expect a typical able-bodied teenager to attend GP check-ups? Plenty of children and teens rarely or never seen a GP, with or without abuse. Besides do you really expect an optician to pick up on signs of abuse, or that a child will have enough time alone with their optician to feel safe disclosing abuse?

There are very few cases of children being shut indoors and never leaving the home

No one has any idea how many cases exist since there are no records. Besides no one is claiming cases like that are commonplace (though they clearly exist) but that much more lower level abuse and neglect exists. It's not just families who actively decide to de-register as a deliberate front for abuse. It's also families who are generally a bit chaotic, who decide to de-register because they can't be bothered or don't want to deal with being hassled over school attendance, and the kid is left to fend for themselves. Maybe the kid gets slapped around a bit, maybe there's no physical abuse. Kids who aren't being locked up, or raped, or severely abused. But they're clearly being neglected and abused in other ways. Kids who hang around parks and shopping centres all day. Kids who receive no education. Those kids are invisible. Those kids don't count. Those kids never end up in court or the press.

www.home-education.org.uk/articles/article-safeguarding-myth.pdf

An unpublished, non-peer reviewed article written for a website called "Educational Heretics" that has no link to any kind of official body, was created by "a team of volunteers including a barrester [sic]", and looks like it was created using Geocities Page Builder circa 1995, is hardly a reliable source.

DBS checks won't be very helpful but I think they should have regular checks to ensure children are actually learning and for safeguarding reasons.
Also all children (both those home educated and those in school) should have yearly medical check ups, not only to spot signs of abuse and neglect but also to help spot medical issues early, before they get more serious.