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?

But as long as there are abused children who go to school and are "seen" every school day and nobody finds out about it how many checks do you think home educators need ?

I would really appreciate it if someone who wants "more checks" could tell us if you think parents of pre-schoolers also should be subjected to the same checks. And what about during school holidays? Lots of us have asked this question but I haven't seen an answer.

Illegal schools should be closed. I don't understand how they can stay open.

That's no problem - they'd be able to check both mine and DP's current DBS (Enhanced), registered with the Update Service so they're live documents.

No worries about 'passing', because neither of us have committed criminal offences.

timetostartcaring.wordpress.com/british-politics-a-list-of-mps-convicted-of-sex-offences/

Wow, so many responses to this are so ignorant of what home educating families are like.
You know how you all spend evenings, nights, weekends and school holidays with your kids? You take them to other places, too, right? You don't just hide in your houses all weekend. Well, home education is like that but for longer periods of time. We're not another species - we're the same as other parents doing what we need to for our kids. Most of the home educated children I've met started off going to school, but the two biggest reasons for parents taking them out of school was unmet SEND needs and bullying. Any of you parents looking with suspicion at home educators now could be in our shoes at some point in your kids' lives.
If home educated kids need checking up on without there being any evidence of abuse, just random checks 'in case', why wouldn't all children need to be checked up on during those long summer holidays when they're out of school? A lot could happen in six weeks, after all. Perhaps when local authorities want to charge the rest of you for DBS checks, you might think to object then, but it'll be too late - there will already be a precedent set that some families have to have their homes' inspected and their children questioned by strangers without their parents being present - so why not yours?

KateW73 nobody is talking about you and HE parents like you.

They're talking about the parents who are not like you, the ones who DO abuse their kids, who DON'T take their kids places, or to regular medical checks, or to bloody Brownies or whatever else people keep banging on about.

It is a fact that some parents pretend to HE as a front for abuse. So far not a single HEer has suggested ways to protect those children, and some are flat out denying that we exist because they'd rather sacrifice abused children for their own ideological purposes (exactly the same as TRA, basically).

Some of the posts from HEers on here have shown total ignorance of what abusive homes are like, and are acting like child abuse is some incredibly rare thing that nobody should care about because "most parents love their kids."

Nobody so far has been able to give a good reason why basic safeguarding is bad. Just a lot of froth about how introducing even very basic safeguarding will lead to mandatory forced abortion for any woman who ever shoplifted a lipbalm as a teenager.

Spot on! So many narrow minded people on here

This comment about DBS checks was made by a single person in the Lords who clearly has no understanding about DBS checks or EHE.

Perhaps we should all be more concerned about how someone so stupid got to be involved in the law making process and governing our country.

I love the way so many people suggest that it is a fact that Home Education is sometimes used as a cover for abuse - when even the powers that be who have all the information cannot come up with a single example where concerns about a child was not already known about by all the relevant agencies.

What is a fact is that some Home Educators are abusive to their children and we know this because the current safeguarding procedures have picked this up time and time again.

No Home Educator is against safeguarding children - what we are saying is the current safeguards for identifying children at risk work as well as - if not better - for HE children than they do for those in school.

Where there may be argument for changes is how agencies should work together to protect a home educated child where there are concerns as this is where all the serious case reviews have shown there to be an issue. Not on identifying and finding these children - that is working really well - but in the agencies knowing who is responsible for what after they have been identified.

So instead of using resources on an area of work where there is clearly a need for improvement the government plan to spend these resources on looking at thriving happy families.

A DBS check would be pointless and is discriminatory - it puts an additional cost on home educating families when other parents are not being DBS checked to look after their own children. If someone is trusted to look after their children during evenings and school holidays, or pre school age, then there’s no difference with them doing it during school hours.

I’ve not seen anyone answer the question about whether parents of pre schoolers should face the same regulations - I have pre school aged children, I’m a stay at home mum and I’ve never seen a health visitor as we opted out (which yes, you are legally entitled to do). Should I be DBS checked to look after them? What about grandparents who babysit or have children for parents who work? Should they also be DBS checked?

There are already multiple safeguarding measures in place for home educated children. Studies have shown home educated kids are twice as visible as schooled children due to them being out and about more often, home educated children are already registered with GPs, their births are registered, it’s not like people don’t know they exist. The DBS check would add nothing except serve as a financial barrier to home education

when even the powers that be who have all the information cannot come up with a single example where concerns about a child was not already known about by all the relevant agencies.

This is just a complete and utter lie.

There are already multiple safeguarding measures in place for home educated children.

What "safeguarding measures" considering it's terrifyingly easy for parents or guardians to simply deregister a child and vanish entirely? That some LEA don't even do a once a year check, or require any documentation at all?

Studies have shown home educated kids are twice as visible as schooled children

What studies?

They should be. Homeschooling is big in our town and all of the homeschoolers share resources, ideas, sometimes ‘stand in’ for each other or teach another kid who isn’t there’s so should have DBS.
they aren’t expensive, are not difficult to apply for and last for 3 years. Why shouldn’t you get one?

‘Studies have shown home educated kids are twice as visible as schooled children’

thats absolute bollocks. Because the local authorities don’t have time to regularly check on home school kids and everyone knows it. The woman on our road who home schools is a medical professional ( doesn’t work as she home schools) and on paper seems brilliantly qualified but we know she’s absolutely got serious, undiagnosed it seems, mental health issues and her children are not benefiting from her attention.
pretty sure she could blag here way through any check though.

The same that any other children receive. They are registered at birth, they see doctors, opticians etc. There are very few cases of children being shut indoors and never leaving the home - children who are deregistered are already known to the LA.

”Home educated children were found to be disproportionately scrutinised, being approximately twice as likely to be referred to Social Services at 9.39 – 10.19%, as were children aged 0-4 years at 5.24% and children aged 5-16 who attend school at 4.93%. Despite that double referral rate, Child Protection Plans were in place for only 0.17 - 0.24% of home educated children compared to 0.69% of all 0-4 year olds and 0.49 of 5- 16 year old schooled children. Referrals to Social Services were found to be 3.5 - 5 times less likely to lead to a Child Protection Plan with home educated children than with referrals of schooled children aged 5-16 at 9.5% and 5 - 7 times less likely to lead to a Child Protection Plan than referrals for children aged 0-4 years at 13.23%. Rates of home educated children subject to a Child Protection Plan at 0.17 - 0.24% of the population, were also found to be less than teaching staff guilty of abuse offences 0.18 – 0.46%. Home educated children are found to not be at increased safeguarding risk, rather they are shown to be at lower risk than other children.”

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

No it’s not bollocks. Being visible doesn’t mean the LA “does checks”, it means they’re seen by professionals and the public.

What qualifications do you have to deem that woman’s home education unsuitable? That she’s got mental health issues? Seems a bit judgemental

Yes. It's a total lie.

Not only have there been cases of abusive parents using home Ed as a cover to take their kids out of school and away from prying eyes, there have also been a number of instances of abuse within the Home Ed community itself.

Lianne Smith was in a relationship with Martin Smith from 1993.

They moved to a remote caravan and began home educating Lianne's children in 1996. Martin Smith began raping Lianne's daughter around the same time.

Lianne became a regional advisor for Education Otherwise and worked for Children's Services in Staffordshire eventually rising to temporary head of that department. While there she consistently advocated for home education and argued for a light-touch approach to home educating families.

After the abuse came to light, Martin and Lianne Smith fled to Spain in 2007. Martin was eventually arrested and shortly afterwards Lianne murdered her two youngest children. They were both convicted in 2010.

One of Lianne Smith’s colleagues at Staffordshire Council, Olaf Hindmarsh, went on to take quite a tough attitude towards home educating parents in Staffordshire. As a result, he became something of a hate figure within the Home Ed community, most of whom were no doubt unaware of the reasons for his hard-line stance.

Peter Tufnell and Jo Berry were another high profile couple within Education Otherwise. Peter Tufnell wrote a chapter of the book Free-Range Education (published 2000) which was praised in some quarters as a charming portrayal of a caring father fully involved in his daughter's education.

While Jo Berry was a local contact for Education Otherwise, Peter Tufnell abused a large number of children within the Home Education movement and was eventually imprisoned.

There seems to have been little to no media coverage of this due to Jo Berry's links to the establishment (her father was Sir Anthony Berry who was killed in the Brighton bombing).

An associate of theirs Jan Fortune Wood (ex-wife of Education Otherwise grandee Mike Fortune Wood)
did write a novel loosely based on events called Dear Ceridwen. The central character is a woman who is in denial that her husband is a paedophile.

Around the same time that Martin and Lianne Smith were fleeing the country in 2007, Education Otherwise was undergoing an internal shakeup. 11 members left the board of trustees and 8 new trustees were appointed, including Jo Berry.
She became responsible for Child Protection within EO. Jo Berry remained on the board of Education Otherwise until 2010.

During this period the board of trustees ended their practice of keeping a record of paedophiles who had been removed from EO and some of the people on the list rejoined.

The Badman Review of Home Education falls towards the end of this period, beginning as it did in 2009. The purpose of the review was to reassess the legislative framework around home education and to consider a register of home educating families to be kept by local authorities. Education Otherwise (successfully) opposed any further regulation of home educating families. Home Educators such as Simon Webb who spoke out in favour of a register were attacked, banned from online spaces and harassed.

Simon Webb kept a blog during this time called Home Education Heretic which is still available online. The comments give some idea of the tone of this internal "debate".

There have been several changes of personnel since then and I don't believe that the clique Jo Berry was a part of are influential in Education Otherwise anymore.

However as recently as 2017 a prominent home educator, Andy Blewitt was arrested for sexually abusing his daughter. Andy Blewitt had been the main organiser for HESFES (Home Education Seaside Festival) which was known for its lax attitude towards the safeguarding of older children. Teenage drug-taking, drinking, nudity and underage sex were all tolerated. More cautious Home Edding parents avoided HESFES and quietly warned others off it. Others attended while their children were little but felt compelled to"reassess" as they reached their teenage years.

With the government again considering regulation of Home Education, Education Otherwise's position remains as staunchly against regulation as ever. Response to the recent Education Committee enquiry from Education Otherwise, from other support groups in the same milieu and from individual parents mobilised by the same are identical to those written in the Badman era.

At ground level, Parents seeking advice from the Home Ed community are often encouraged to limit their interaction with Local Authorities and to give the minimum information required by law.

My own interest in these matters was piqued by receiving advice like this. I thought it all seemed a little paranoid and wondered what might be behind it. I was particularly offended, (in a way I can’t quite identify), at being told that although I might well talk to the LA and be OK, my decision to do so could disadvantage other home educating parents who might then be expected to do the same.

I have now concluded that some of this culture has its genesis in abusive parents wishing to normalise reticent and cagey behaviour, the better to hide their own family secrets.

Not quite. If a child attends school and is clearly bruised or neglected or sexually inappropriate, teachers will raise concerns. If a child is being abused or neglected in an unchecked home schooling situation in the wilds of nowhere, then no one will be there to raise an alarm.

DBS is the least the gov can do for homeschooled kids.

My HE son is "visible" I suppose. He goes to a number after school activities and sometimes to home Ed meetups.
However, because all those activities are voluntary, noone would bat an eyelid if he stopped turning up.
Infact, he has lost interest in a few things and dropped them without explanation.
No one checked up and why would they? Kids pick up and drop hobbies all the time.
Noone rings SS to say that little Johnny's not been seen at Scouts.

Still no one has answered if parents of under 5s should be DBS checked. As I said earlier, HVs are optional (we personally opted out), nursery is optional. Why suddenly at 5 should a parent have to be DBS checked but not before?

Who are all these kids who are repeatedly being seen by doctors, dentists and opticians?! A sizeable proportion of children can't even register with an NHS dentist and have you tried to actually see, in-person, a GP recently?! Some parts of the country barely have a health visiting service.

I agree with this.

If someone has a record of offences such as terrorism, or grooming (of any kind) or most forms of violent offending, then I think it is very much in the DC's interests for this to be known. Otherwise, as now, they just become invisible. And that is an avoidable risk

I’ve taken 2 of my 3 kids to see in person health professionals in the last 3 months.

Yours have been @ForestFae but many won't have been - my DD has seen GP once in last six years and optician once. HV virtually non-existent in our old area. Many kids have very very few encounters like this, even when they have committed, interested and engaged parents because the kid is healthy.

The HE family I'm concerned about has avoided interactions with healthcare as far as possible.

And unlike in nursery, where they would follow up if your kid didn't come in one day, things like Rainbows and Brownies don't.

I don't agree with DBS checks for HE families (or parents of under-5s etc!) but I do agree with some kind of check being in place to ensure the kids' wellbeing and also that they're receiving a suitable education.

When you homeschool your children you do remove them from having day to day contact with others on school, without the presence of a parent. This reduces the likelihood of others picking up any signs of abuse. It means the child has fewer opportunities to tell a trusted adult they know well (e.g. a teacher) if anything untoward is happening at home, without any chance of being “caught” by the parent. Regular inspections are one thing, and necessary, but they aren’t going to provide the same context or ability to pick up on concerns as seeing a child day in, day out when you can pick up on signs of abuse, or change in behaviour or repeated absences and so on.

The problem is that whilst the majority of parents choosing to home school their children are choosing that path for good reasons, there are is a small but noteworthy minority who are using home schooling as a way to keep their children “off the radar”- whether that is due to needing to hide evidence of abuse/make sure child is isolated and has no-one to tell and that includes enforced child marriage, FGM, children being expected to “work” at home and some very religious views relating to female children not requiring to be educated and so on (which are forms of abuse too). Then there are also concerns about those who chose to do it do they can indoctrinate their children into their extremist views without interference from outside.

of course DBS checks aren’t going to weed out those who have not been caught and so I doubt they are being proposed as the only measure to try and protect children who may be at risk if homeschooled. Because these children do exist and we are pretty poor at identifying them until it’s far too late.