To disagree with home ed

Here is an account of one pupils experience of school
https://www.facebook.com/61569916045166/posts/122164162712663868/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

Children are not necessarily safe in schools - this needs to be understood

Until the schools, LA and Government can safeguard pupils in schools they should not be targeting parents

It's not about other children not having safeguarding
Nobody is saying children shouldn't be protected.

We are however saying
A. The current services should be properly funded
B. The current services should act quicker and more effective in cases where is child is known to be at risk. And not leave them in the dangerous environment
C. We are concerned that now we have found something that works for our SEN children - we do not want to be forced back into an environment that was causing so much damage and harm to those children nor do we want interference from agencies that are not adequately trained or having the understanding of SEN making decisions based on hiting targets
D. We do not want home ed becoming a scapegoat for the errors of government and social services. Especially, as the home ed by choose group have literally been a lifeline to the home ed by force families - due to off rolling or damage caused by schools

In my experience councils do a welfare check when a child is withdrawn from school to home ed either by social services, the police or an education welfare officer.
This great myth that is being perpetuated that kids are being withdrawn under the radar is because councils are failing their duties to provide an education for every child. And social services has been cut to the bone. Children that have been murdered by family members were not under the radar or hidden in plain sight they were overlooked by people in paid positions to protect children.

Yes I have.
Numbers suggest that less than a third of home educated children are in that position because of unmet SEN, mental health issues related to school, off rolling, neurodivergence etc.
Completely sympathize and don’t agree with the OP on this.

Also think however there needs to be more oversight for the sake of those children who are at risk because they’ve been withdrawn and become invisible to services with abusive, unstable or inadequate parenting.
I don’t think at all that one group of children has precedence over the other which seems to be what people are arguing. Ie if their children’s needs aren’t met then those in other categories aren’t a concern.

Have you heard of off rolling?

Has anyone seen the latest posts on social media from the department of education?

We got emojis spelling something out and gemma collins meeting to discuss the reforms! It looks like a comedy sketch.

If you want evidence of how bad things have become in our education system have a look at the department of education and a read at the desperation and despair from parents of SEN pupils.

And if you want to save children - stand with SEN parents and home educating families and demand better. Do not stand by cheering while the government strip away legal rights and legal protections under a mistruth of safeguarding. If safeguarding was the agenda they wouldn't be removing legal protections to SEN pupils access a suitable education

It's not that HE'ers take it personally (though, obviously, a few do), it's that it will undermine some of the benefits many HE'ers get from HE, and will use up state resources which could prevent more harm by being focused elsewhere.

It's never the conversation here.

Which makes me think it is more about home ed itself rather than actually safeguarding children.

Have you heard about minimizing actual concerns from actual home families with SEN children who have been treated awfully by schools, LAs and the government who want to further removed legal protections from vulnerable children

And its interesting how people are all about protection but when it's pointed out all the groups that are protected then that's not relevant

Have you heard of ‘whataboutism’?
It's a way of deflecting from a question you don’t want to be asked.

Where's the thread or calls for under 5 monitoring

Never seen one but seen lots of anti home Ed ones

Worth checking at all ages absolutely.
But one doesn’t negate the other, and wasn’t the conversation here.

Of course. It's odd that the focus seems to only be on children of school age out of sight when under 5's are regularly out of sight and I don't see hardly as much people talk about introducing mandatory checks to check on them.

Yep, children being abused at any age is obviously a bad thing

Because so many reasons

if it's harder to deregister parents of children in crisis won't be able to take them out for home ed quickly- meaning they are left in an environment making them ill.

Children currently home educated due to past school trauma may be forced back into the environment

Children with SEN that aren't getting proper education to meet their needs will have to remain in school resulting in poor educational outcomes for them, the suggested packages of support won't meet needs and children will.either be left to fail or become more disruptive and difficult which will.have a negative impact on other pupils too.

Children that are home educated will be need checks at home (according to plans). These checks will take manpower and time. If these checks are done by unskilled people (likely by my experience) they won't know what they are looking at and could very well make wrong assumptions about the quality of education. Resulting in return to school orders that are not needed. This will cause damage to young people forced into schools.particularly those previously failed by schools.
Will they be trained to recognize the signs of abuse, but also recognise children who are autistic and struggling with strangers entering their safe space? Will they know the difference?

Will there be 2 people one trained in home Ed and one in safeguarding doing these checks or will they focus on one area only?

How big will the team be because social services are failing to safeguard children known to be at risk now. If they have to monitor every home Ed family they will have even less time to focus on the known at risk children. These children known to be at risk should not be ignored due to time constraints

Lastly, what about those children under compulsory school age - how are they going to be safeguarded. All do abusive parents just have to make sure the child is under 5 so that they fly under the radar

Surely in those cases, the biggest risk is children who never enter the system in the first place?

What about children under school age? Health visitor checks aren't compulsory, nursery isn't compulsory etc so if home ed needs to be more strict to attempt to monitor these children then surely that means that health visitor checks for under 5's should be mandatory and maybe nursery should be mandatory for 3+ year olds. Early intervention with eyes on children would likely provide better safeguarding than leaving it until school age.

The mainstream school we have says they cannot meet need - yes we’re in the SEN category but they say there are at least 10 other children who they cannot support but won’t get specialist support. What is the right answer here?

How?

Because the measures that are proposed will actually harm children and dilute resources so that those actually at risk are still not getting support.

So you think OP people should be obligated to have their kids educated by the state, unless they are wealthy?

That's more than a little authoritarian.

I certainly don’t think it should be banned, and have huge admiration for those that do it well (and for those forced into it by school failure with SEN/mental health).
There are many bodies that believe, and cases to back them up, that some children are more at risk of abuse because they effectively disappear from the system (and in some cases are not seen by gps, dentist’s etc.) so there is no oversight. Another small group of children have their education significantly neglected. Many on this thread have attested to that.

But I’ve said this already and been shouted down so I guess you will too!. I would have thought it was in the interests of the HE community to support measures (more oversight?) to protect all HE children as it is a growing phenomenon. But everyone seems to take it so personally, if you do it well then why not help protect children who’s parents can’t or won’t. (I get why the threads title is annoying though)

I certainly don’t think it should be banned, and have huge admiration for those that do it well (and for those forced into it by school failure with SEN/mental health).
There are many bodies that believe, and cases to back them up, that some children are more at risk of abuse because they effectively disappear from the system (and in some cases are not seen by gps, dentist’s etc.) so there is no oversight. Another small group of children have their education significantly neglected. Many on this thread have attested to that.

But I’ve said this already and been shouted down so I guess you will too!. I would have thought it was in the interests of the HE community to support measures (more oversight?) to protect all HE children as it is a growing phenomenon. But everyone seems to take it so personally, if you do it well then why not help protect children who’s parents can’t or won’t. (I get why the threads title is annoying though)

Yes. And home ed, balancing those two things, is no more or less safe than being in school. So what is the basis for banning it as the OP suggests? Or putting more state oversight on it?

https://www.facebook.com/1212271077/videos/2007280139799822/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

This fictional piece is where the school and wellbeing bill is leading.
If you care about harm to children you need to care about the harm this bill will cause too

More than one thing can be true.
Children can be harmed in more than one way - by the state but also by their parents through actual abuse or neglect.