Why would dc of non working parents be in school?

[DaanSaaf]

Just that really. Wondered what the reasons could be.

How on earth is it not true?

There are plenty of children in settings who have perfectly safe homes. Their parents however may struggle to care for them with no respite for months on end where there are severe additional needs.

Either disabled, SEN or ‘vulnerable’ so in other words, their home isn’t safe.

Children with EHCPs are not automatically at risk at home. Lots of at risk children are at risk because of things in the community (eg gangs) not at home, we have one child in school because he is a risk to his mother, not the other way around and others because their MH is so fragile we want to see them daily but you keep judging and assuming Millie.

Ds could go into school. He is in no way at risk at home but he does have an EHCP.

I discussed it with school and we both agreed it not being school as he knows it combined with the fact that only a small proportion of the schools staff are trained for his tube and other issues then it was in his best interest not to go.

I imagine this is why plenty of vulnerable children are not at school, because the parents do not want to be judged

Sen , my dc just has 1 day in school a week .

Because, quite simply, their home isn't safe for them

Don’t be ridiculous @2007Millie you’ve just read that ECHP/special needs is a common reason, so why decide it’s all to do with unsafe homes?

There are about six possible categories, in fact.

An ECHP does not automatically gain a child a place. Only children who:
* 'have an education, health and care (EHC) plan whose needs cannot be met safely in the home environment*' are able to attend school.

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, for the purposes of continued attendance at educational settings, vulnerable children and young people are defined as those who:
• are assessed as being in need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, including children who have a child in need plan, a child protection plan or who are a looked-after child
• have an education, health and care (EHC) plan whose needs cannot be met safely in the home environment
• have been assessed as otherwise vulnerable by educational providers or local authorities (including children’s social care services), and who are therefore in need of continued education provision - this might include children on the edge of receiving support from children’s social care services, adopted children, or those who are young carers, and others at the provider and local authority discretion

Ds could go into school. He is in no way at risk at home but he does have an EHCP.

Not at our school.
Only children with ECHPs who are not safe at home can attend.

An ECHP does not automatically gain a child a place. Only children who:
* 'have an education, health and care (EHC) plan whose needs cannot be met safely in the home environment' are able to attend school.

That doesn’t mean their home isn’t safe. It would more commonly mean that they urgently need the therapeutic input they get at school, and/ something as close to their normal routine as possible, and/or their parent(s) need the respite from caring. You could easily make that argument for most children who hold an ECHP.

The last thing children with SN, children with disabled parents, young Carers, adopted children, children with MH problems and the rest need is to stigmatised as coming from neglectful homes.

My friends work in a school with a number of vulnerable and at risk children. "I couldn't sleep at night if we just wave goodbye for 4 months,6 weeks in the summer is bad enough".

What does "not safe" actually mean? It's not what Millie is inferring.

Bad parents sometimes. Key workers kids

Not safe: kids at risk of exploitation . They’re having sex/using drugs. Parents drug addicts or neglectful. Overcrowded home. Poverty. Etc

My SIL isn't bright enough to help with her 8 and 11 yo childrens education and they were really falling behind. The school decided that they would be better off coming in.

SIL also is borderline neglectful. Not enough for the kids to be taken away unfortunately.

Bad parents sometimes. Key workers kids

FFS. A PP just C&Ped the whole list. Read it. It’s not just the children of “bad parents” and key workers.

I’m so sick of this gossipy, ill-informed tendency that the crisis has encouraged in some people.

This thread is no different from all the nosey neighbour “she sat on a bench for a whole minute during her daily exercise” threads.

"SIL also is borderline neglectful. Not enough for the kids to be taken away unfortunately."

FFS, that's "unfortunate"? What do you think happens to kids who are "taken away"?

Not safe: kids at risk of exploitation . They’re having sex/using drugs. Parents drug addicts or neglectful. Overcrowded home. Poverty. Etc

No. DC with an ECHP whose “needs cannot be met safely at home” could include DC who meltdown when their routine is disrupted, DC who receive OT, or SLT, or physio at their special school, DC whose parents are WFH and need supervision, DC whose parents rely on the weekday respite.....It does not necessarily mean dangerous, addicted, neglectful or exploitative parents.

What is your motivation for wanting to blacken the name of parents who have DC currently in school? (I don’t have any DC in school ATM, BTW, so have no horse in the race, save for the fact my eldest -now adult- once had a statement/ECHP and was very routine-dependent.)

The criteria are perfectly easy to understand.

Arrietty

It means amongst (many) other things that the child cannot be kept safe because the care and/or resources available at home do not meet the child's FULL needs.
This could be as straightforward as the parent/child needing respite.

That’s what I just said @whatdoyoudonow

No. DC with an ECHP whose “needs cannot be met safely at home” could include DC who meltdown when their routine is disrupted, DC who receive OT, or SLT, or physio at their special school, DC whose parents are WFH and need supervision, DC whose parents rely on the weekday respite.....It does not necessarily mean dangerous, addicted, neglectful or exploitative parents.

This. Xpost.

Yeh. We posted at the same time.

have an education, health and care (EHC) plan whose needs cannot be met safely in the home
My DS is in this category. It's not him that's not physically safe if he's at home full time, it's mainly my DD, but his mental health needs are not being met clearly by being at home full time, as evidenced in his behaviour.
Two days a week has reassured him and this is working to keep us all safe.
But I'm putting on my flame proof kit for those that judge me.