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

[Grimed]

Baroness Garden is intending all homeschool parents to be DBS checked. I don't think this is fair. What makes Homeschool parents more likely to be abusive? Surely regular checks from the local LA should be enough? If the education system is failing so many children perhaps that is what's needs examining not parents. What's next? All pregnant women get DBS checked?

I feel like this is a cheap option for the government, instead of putting into place a proper system of monitoring and support for home ed parents.

Am considering home ed myself, but am put off by the total lack of support available. If I home educate I'd like to be able to access support such as funded training and resources.

I hope you don’t intend to teach your children statistics or formal logic.

So many posts by fervent supporters of unchecked home learning on here are making it very clear in their posts where some of the issues are.

Numeracy. Your first sentence really doesn’t work, either.

Please tell me you are not in any way involved with educating children.

Not sure if it was a typo or being wiped out with a bug in regards to miss spelling numeracy....
Although I know the difference between to and too so better grammar than a few teachers from what I gather from threads I've read in the past.

There is absolutely nothing stopping them from asking adults who were home educated to complete a survey. They can gather data. If there were a group of adults who felt horrifically let down, would they not be voicing their support for increased regulations?

Part of a child’s education is in morals, and civic responsibility. Society has an interest in ensuring that no child learns these solely from a person with criminal convictions.

Mis-spelling even, ill and head is pounding...

Although I think it would be interesting to have teachers sit a grammar exam...

"Also (correct me if I'm wrong) but every case of a home educated child that I have heard of has been a child who was previously in school and known to social services before they were removed so really nothing to do with home ed at all and more ss being to quick to wipe their hands of responsibility."

"That is right. I don't know of any case ( that is in the public domain) of a home educated UK child being abused where concerns hadn't already been raised by someone. Please correct me if I am wrong. Children who are deliberately hidden, not registered or trafficked are not home educated."

Yes you are wrong.

I've posted about this before (and got absolutely loads of abuse) but it happened to me. I grew up in a very normal middle class household, did well in school (was actually considered a gifted student), no concerns or contact with SS. I lost my dad when I was 11 and my mum had a breakdown and a much younger man took advantage of her and moved in, and started abusing me. Mum couldn't cope so she was coerced into writing a letter to Harrow LEA saying she'd decided to home educate.

I received NO education at all from that moment on, apart from reading books we already had in the house, and basically didn't go outdoors or do anything except watch TV or read for years. No doctor or dentist appointments, nothing. Her boyfriend tried to sex traffic me, and I ran away from home and became homeless when I was 17, going on benefits and into a B&B and then a bedsit.
Not once - NOT ONCE - did anyone from any kind of government body or authority make any attempt to get in contact with us or check up on me. Literally not once. It was like the minute they got the letter I no longer existed.

The first contact I ever had with SS was when I was 16, after the first time I ran away. Before that I'd never had any contact with SS and was definitely not on their radar at all. My mum writing a letter saying she'd decided to homeschool didn't raise any flags and no one ever tried to check up or do any kind of monitoring.

Curious about the wording of "public domain." My mum's boyfriend was arrested and sent to prison. So I guess that makes it public domain? It's exceptionally rare for a child abuse case to be severe enough that it makes the press. Child abuse is terrifyingly common, but how often do you even read anything about child abuse in the press? Usually only when a child is murdered. You really think it doesn't happen just because you're not reading about it over your cornflakes?
I know through my involvement in peer support groups for abuse survivors that cases like mine are very common.

People see what they want to see.

Just popping on the thread to point out (again) that DBS checks for Home Ed Parents isn't a real policy and isn't going to happen.

It was just an off the cuff and ill informed remark made by one member of the House of Lords in the debate on the Schools Bill.

It would be silly to ask parents to submit to a DBS check because (as PP have pointed out) they are a measure to help employers and not really relevant to parents looking after their own children in their own homes. Also, they tell the authorities almost nothing about the quality of parenting and education that the person is providing.

Here's the briefing papers for that debate which explain what the bill is about. As you can see the proposal for home education is: "a register and support for children not in school"

I think its important to be clear about what the bill actually says because some home ed parents are getting themselves really worked up about things and worrying their kids will be forced back into school.

For what its worth, I support a register. Home education has grown exponentially in recent years and has also been misused as a cover for unregistered schools, off rolling and yes, sometimes child abuse.

Its really important that, at a minimum, local authorities know who the home educated children are. Thats the first step to checking they're OK.

As for what home educated children should learn and how suitability of home education is assessed, there is already a body of law on this. The education has to be "an efficient full time education suitable for his age aptitude and ability and to any special education needs"

Caselaw has established that the education should allow the child to function in wider society (not just, for example, within an alternative lifestyle or a religious sect), should include literacy and numeracy and must have some element of instruction (as opposed to the child simply exploring their world without adult guidance).

Thats the benchmark that people on the new register will be held to. I feel thats its pretty reasonable and leaves space for a wide variety of teaching and learning styles.

"If there were a group of adults who felt horrifically let down, would they not be voicing their support for increased regulations?"

Nobody listens to us and we get abuse when we try.

As a home educator I'm not against a register of some description, though I can sympathise with those families who have been let down again and again by school & LA to such a point that they've lost all trust in the authorities.

But such a register needs to be handled sensibly and with sensitivity. I think it's important to know how many are home educating, what the reasons are (so lack of provision for SEN etc in schools can be addressed), and support should be offered for those who want/need it. The people who work for education departments in LAs need to have training to understand the different types and philosophies of home education. With current levels of understanding there's no wonder so many home educating families are completely against LAs being involved.

Jemima I am so sorry for you situation, you were clearly horribly let down. By your Mother’s unmet mental health needs, by what sounds like an appalling predatory man and by the fact that there was never any check on you by your LEA at all throughout the rest of your childhood. Your educational circumstances and/or lack of involvement with other services should have red flagged SS for further checks ( potentially including DBS checking )

Most people objecting to default DBS checks for HE families to ensure safeguarding are not objecting to checks. Just asking for appropriate and useful ones. HE is not a red flag in an of itself, just a reason to make sure a child known and observed in some other way.

There is an LEA register for homeschooled children, most local authorities are nothing but helpful but there are very small minority who have been obstructive and have acted to force children back to mainstream school without cause or reference to their circumstances.
The argument from HE families, is that all LEA’s should all act within the Law and that they should be adequately resourced observe childrens’ wellbeing when checking on Educational provision or flag other care services to do so. Eg calling unseen children for health or dental checks. If there is cause for concern then escalation would be appropriate.

To those who might ask why I think I could be qualified to HomeEducate my child especially beyond basic primary level, I don’t. Qualified Teachers do that as they do with the other homeschooled kids at secondary level I know. It is the LEAs job to ensure they are receiving a suitable education and most sensible HomeEd families who have a non-hostile LEA have no problem with providing evidence of this and keeping their children seen regularly by care professionals.
Not being regularly seen and not being educated are red flags, Home Ed isn’t.

Home Educating families are asking for these things to be understood as separate.

"Most people objecting to default DBS checks for HE families to ensure safeguarding are not objecting to checks."

In my experience of having participated in numerous debates on HE here on Mumsnet, that is not the case.

HE threads on Mumsnet tend to be overwhelmingly and aggressively against any form of checks at all. I know I've been involved in some absolute humdingers where other posters were absolutely steadfast that even a once a year check was oppression and state interference in their rights, would do nothing to flag abuse, and all the usual whatabouttery about kids being abused who do go to school. Perhaps it's just a very loud minority, but past debates have become really hostile towards the concept of monitoring in general and outright abusive towards anyone anyone who was home educated (or denied education under the guise of HE) and negative about it.

By weird coincidence I briefly worked as a tutor for a home education organisation (an organisation which provided various courses which HE parents could use to create their own curriculum, if they wanted their children to have more formal structure, or if they felt they were not qualified to teach certain subjects). So I have experience working with 'good' HE parents and I understand the very valid reasons many parents choose to HE and the shit that fantastic HE parents deal with from LEAs. It's insane how varied LEAs can be and that there does not appear to be any kind of overall consensus or implementation.

"Your educational circumstances and/or lack of involvement with other services should have red flagged SS for further checks ( potentially including DBS checking)"

Sorry for double posting but I think this is the thing, really.

People think that abuse only happens in certain types of families but it can happen anywhere.

Realistically, if you have a situation like mine with an academically successful nearly-teen from a middle class, affluent household where no one has ever been on SS radar, no one has ever had any involvement with SS or police, what about that is is going to trigger an SS check, other than the decision to home educate itself?

Plenty of posters have said "the decision to HE shouldn't be a flag for SS" but what if that is the ONLY flag? I've seen a few posts suggesting that abuse only happens in families known to SS, but that's just a myth and it's a lie people tell themselves so they can feel more comfortable. Plenty of abuse and neglect happens in 'naice' middle class families that have never been on SS radar. Who protects those kids?

You say lack of involvement with other services, but it's pretty normal for a teenager to go years without needing to see a GP. It's not like babies where they have vaccinations and regular checks. Okay yeah teens should go to the dentist regularly, but I'm sure tons of parents of teens aren't dragging them to the dentist as regularly as they should, that wouldn't be an SS flag and it's not like there's some national record of dental appointments.

So really what "other services" would you expect a middle class teenager to be regularly engaging with, the absence of which would trigger an SS check?

Jemima, I also did note your comment about getting abuse for adding your account of your personal experience to the debate. Abuse is unjustifiable, feelings run high when our children are involved - but that is no excuse.
It sounds like you have done an incredible job of turning your life around and have played your part in the world for positive HE.
I think some HE families who have had bad experiences often find it difficult to trust in authority and there will always be some who have an ideological view on state involvement. Personally I hear a lot but meet few. The families I meet are mostly are just getting on with a good solution in an imperfect system.

Sorry, triple posting ! I didn’t answer your question “what is going to trigger an SS check?”

1. Lack of evidence that a suitable education is being provided to the LEA ( They should be requesting this and mostly do. )


2. Child not been regularly seen somewhere in the system e.g. Medical, Dental, Youth services etc

My experience is that these professionals always ask my child what school and then engage him directly in conversation with them about education, hobbies and social life when they realise he is unconventionally catered for. I know why they do it, I’m glad when they do, and butt out to let them get on with it. They need to talk directly with the child not me.

I appreciate that, I really do. There just seems to be such a huge gulf in experiences here, especially in terms of LEA involvement.

Lack of evidence that a suitable education is being provided to the LEA ( They should be requesting this and mostly do. )

I agree with this, I think it raises the question what level of LEA monitoring is reasonable, and what level of regular monitoring will the HE community accept?

We've already seen that some LEAs are completely hands off and do zero monitoring, don't request any evidence or perform even an annual check. While other LEAs are overly aggressive in their monitoring and demanding proof (which makes good HEers feel oppressed and incites hostility towards LEAs).

Child not been regularly seen somewhere in the system e.g. Medical, Dental, Youth services etc

But what system? What specifically does this mean with regard to a teenager? What "youth services" would you expect a teenager with no prior SS involvement to be going to? (I honestly have no idea what "youth services" even means - like a kind of Byker Grove youth club?) Ditto GP, unlike very young children who have regular checkups and vaccinations, teens mainly go to the GP only when they're ill or injured. On what planet is a healthy teenager "not being regularly seen by GP" going to be an SS flag?

Unless the decision to HE is inherently a flag for monitoring (which clearly some posters find unacceptable), it's incredibly easy for someone with no prior SS involvement to simply deregister a child from school and vanish. That needs to be changed. DBS isn't the answer, but maybe standardised monitoring is.

Unless the decision to HE is inherently a flag for monitoring (which clearly some posters find unacceptable), it's incredibly easy for someone with no prior SS involvement to simply deregister a child from school and vanish. That needs to be changed. DBS isn't the answer, but maybe standardised monitoring is

It's not just about finding it unacceptable. It's perfectly legal to home educate. As I pointed out earlier according to the Education Act parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are educated. I can't see how doing something that the law requires us to do can ever be a concern.
If people want more monitoring the law will have to change.

Jemima you are posting based on your first hand experience, which was dreadful but I, and many others, are posting based on our first hand experience.

The Schools Bill, as drafted, is horrendous for children with SEN.

It seeks to criminalise parents who keep their children away from school because the schools are failing the child. For some children, often autistic children, the school environment is traumatic. Because the ultimate aim of the government of more than the last decade is to cut costs there is often no school that is suitable for these children. It is not always home where children face harm.

Doing a DBS check or any other check isn't going to 'fix' a broken SEN system which is ultimately is what rocket launches many families into home ED. Under the Schools Bill, as drafted, many more vulnerable children will be home educated because the alternative to de-registration is criminal fines or imprisonment, often of the mother!

I mentioned upthread that the idea of checks is a complete joke. My son left the school system 5 years ago 'known' to agencies for mental health issues caused by the school. No one has ever checked what kind of education he receives.

Of course the most vulnerable children need protecting and of course it's not always obvious who those children are but there are tens of thousands of children who the government does know are displaced because of sen, rather than supporting them it actively encourages LAs to break the law to continue to fail these children. If I hadn't seen the lengths to which children are being actively failed by the state when it comes to education I wouldn't believe it.

So yes some form of checks need to take place but not at the expense of diverting funding to create a list from fixing the system which is creating large numbers of home educated children who are not being home educated for ideological reasons. It definitely suits the government that families are forced to deregister SEN children, it costs them less.

It's not just about finding it unacceptable. It's perfectly legal to home educate.

No one has suggested otherwise?

Jebatronic has posted saying that LEAs should be regularly monitoring home educated children, but it's clear that many HEers object to any form of monitoring, even the absolute bare minimum to try to prevent a situation where parents and guardians can simply deregister a child and vanish entirely.

How can we reconcile some HEers objection to any kind of checks, without furthering a system where kids can vanish entirely without anyone noticing? If you want to keep kids from falling off the radar, you need checks.

Jemima perhaps read my whole post. I said " I can't see how doing something that the law requires us to do can ever be a concern. "

Hmm, well the tone of this thread has certainly done a 180 from previous threads on this subject, where the idea of even a brief once a year check was received with quite a bit of hostility.

I think we all agree that the LEA fails children and that they need to do more all round.

I'm not willing to rely on a system that counts on GPs and dentists to call social services every time they notice that a teenager hasn't been booking regular checkups.

Well, teenagers don't even have regular checkups with GPs! It's so hard to find an NHS dentist now and not everyone can afford to go private, so I don't think that a lack of dentist check-ups is necessarily a cause for concern either.

I don't know what the answer is. But there are plenty of school children that are abused at home without anyone at school realising, so I can't see that a few LA visits a year is going to make any difference to most abused home educated children.

I wouldn’t design a system like that either, for those registered as educating otherwise a lack of hits from services ( even if quite inoccently due to great health and teeth !) would be of interest- care professionals have enough to do without tracking stuff themselves. The systems in place just need to connect. If you’ve got no contact hits and no evidence of a suitable education provision then trigger a request for a wellbeing checkup so that children are seen.
HE families can’t expect zero involvement from education/care services - but proportional and effective doesn’t look like blanket DBS checks to me.

If you’ve got no contact hits and no evidence of a suitable education provision then trigger a request for a wellbeing checkup so that children are seen

Seen by what kind of professional and for what purpose though? To check what the children know? That their learning is delivered according to their "age, ability and aptitude" ( a legal requirement) How they are feeling? If they are being abused?
The fact that you don't show evidence of a suitable education provision ( home educators don't have to do this) doesn't necessarily mean that the children's well being needs checking up on.
In a lot of these discussions people get education mixed up with safeguarding.

Well, teenagers don't even have regular checkups with GPs!

Exactly!! That's why it's so frustrating to keep reading, "We don't need any kind of checks on children and teens who are removed from school because any child not having regular GP and dental checkups would be flagged to social services."

Literally on what planet would a dentist ever phone social services because a teen isn't making regular check ups?

But there are plenty of school children that are abused at home without anyone at school realising, so I can't see that a few LA visits a year is going to make any difference to most abused home educated children.

As someone who actually has personal first hand experience it would ABSOLUTELY save some children from abuse. If at any point even one single person had checked on me and been willing to listen to me I would have been rescued. 100%.

Maybe it won't save "most" but it will certainly save some. If it even saves one child from death or sex trafficking or a life of abuse, it's worthwhile. Surely?

Playing "but children attending school get abused too" card is just plain whatabouttery. Yes plenty of school-attending kids get abused and the school doesn't notice, but a huge amount of abuse and neglect gets picked up on because the child is in school.