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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

How exactly would you"check for safeguarding"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

They should have checks to look for convictions for violent or sexual crime, but crucially in my opinion, nothing else should show up. The more sanctimonious MNers will say that if you once stole some sweets you should never teach or be a nurse but in the real world rehabilitation is a thing.

There hasn't been a single compelling argument by HE's on this thread, but there has been a lot of whataboutery that has nothing to do with the core issue.

This isn't about you; a cohort of abusers is hiding behind home education. Something needs to be done about that. If you don't like this suggestion come up with an alternative.

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

And a lot of that abuse is only picked up on because they attend school.

HEers aren't any more or less likely to abuse their children, so why - when child abuse is so common - dismiss the concept of safeguarding with a blithe "well most parents love their kids so we don't safeguarding."

What is the "core issue"then Theibebriati ?

No home educators do not have to "come up with an alternative". Why should we? Home Home education is the legal default for education. It's up to law makers and politicians to make new laws. I am not personally responsible for the behaviour of other home educators, just like a man isn't responsible for the behaviour of all other men. I wouldn't ask my dentist to "come up with a solution" to the problem of some other dentists mistreating patients.

It's not "whataboutery" to talk about abuse that goes on in schools on a thread about home education. Isn't school where you would send a home educated child that had been abused by their parents?

I am a bit confused by what you are saying on this thread

What do you think the ideal solution would be to the problem "home educated children are being abused"?

Why should we?

Because basic empathy?

You'd think anyone with the tiniest atom of human feeling would want to protect children who are part of their own "minority community" from being abused, especially when that abuse does so much damage to how HE is perceived and can easily be used to justify restrictions on HE.

It's disturbing how many HEers seem to take a policy of, "I don't give a shit about abused kids, I'm happy to sacrifice other kids if it'll help me avoid the most miniscule intrusion into my own life."

I am a bit confused by what you are saying on this thread

Sorry that you're confused.

To clarify: I'm saying the fact that abuse is commonplace disproves the statements "safeguarding or trying to prevent abuse is unnecessary because most parents love their kids."

What do you think the ideal solution would be to the problem "home educated children are being abused"?

What do you think the solution is? You're the expert.

I certainly did not say that I "don't give a shit about abused kids". I said that law abiding non-abusive home educators should not be blamed for the abuse of children who aren't sent to school.

Saying that home educators should want to come up with a solution to end abuse because if we don't people might think less of us, we might be blamed for it and we might be subjected to stricter laws just isn't proportionate or right.

Blame the abusers for the abuse .

It is similar to when people ask or expect minority group members to apologise when someone else from said group commits a crime. It’s frustrating.

Oh please, people who decide to remove their children from school are not a "minority group." Comparing yourselves to actual minorities is offensive.

No one is holding you responsible for other people abusing their child, merely suggesting that it shows a shocking lack of empathy to aggressively argue against safeguarding that could save children's lives, because you're choosing to put ideology above preventing abuse.

I'm sick of constantly seeing all the anti-safeguarding, whatabouterry and "it never happens" arguments trotted out by TRA, and I'm sick of seeing those exact same arguments here.

Part of the reason I am considering home educating is that I was once a child in an abusive and neglectful home and not a single teacher ever picked up on the many, many signs of abuse and neglect.

It made me realise how little most teachers care for the well-being of their students - or that perhaps they just don't have the time to notice the signs of abuse in such large class sizes. Either way, I don't want my child in that system that cares so little.

I’m sorry that happened. I was abused at school, by peers and certain teachers. No one in the school cared at all. The idea that school is a safe haven for kids is laughable, one of the reasons I home ed is because I don’t want my kids going onto what’s pretty much a bear pit.

It’s pointless trying to break through to the none Home Educators here.

As far as they are concerned we are all potential abusers and as long as THEIR civil liberties aren’t affected they would happily have us and our children all microchipped and our homes installed with live CCTV for ‘safeguarding’.

They have no interest in our lived experiences and most of them can’t think outside of their ‘send kids to school obey conformity’ mindset.

I kind of think spite comes into it a bit also. If their kids have to ask an authority to go to the toilet, must sit at a desk quietly being droned at by a 9-5 clock watcher who couldn’t care less about them, must tolerate peer abuse by little sociopaths who have learnt ‘might makes right’, have to be told what to wear, when to wake up, when to play, what is permitted in their lunch box, what to learn, how to learn it etc etc etc then why should Home Educators and their children not have to suffer also?

The things most parents will inflict on their children for free childcare and hopefully a suitable one size fits all education!