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?

Home educators don’t have to follow the curriculum. There’s no legal requirement to. The education must be “suitable” but that doesn’t mean following the curriculum. There are multiple ways to do that. Again, you say you expect to see some sort of structure - that again is your own bias and preference, we have no obligation to do that. And we don’t necessarily teach at the same time as schools do - for example, statistically home educated children learn to read a couple of years later than schooled children. However there aren’t higher rates of illiteracy among the home educated at 18 vs schooled at 18.

A lot of people who don’t Home Ed imagine it in a way that it isn’t, and I don’t think it’s fair to make Home Edders conform to those standards when one of the reasons we want to educate our kids ourselves is so we have the freedom for our kids to learn at their pace and the flexibility to do so

Well, you might expect those things and most home educators do have those things and do those things. But home educators ( just like private schools) don't have to follow the National Curriculum.

It’s interesting how there aren’t people as outraged by that about private schools than they are about Home Educators isn’t it.

Don't private schools sit the same exams as state schools? So surely have to be studying the same subjects and the same material, in order for their students to pass those exams?

Name one private school in England that does not enter their students for GCSEs (and A Levels if the school goes up to 18).

Private schools tend to statistically have much higher success rates in GCSE results than state schools, so clearly those students are being very successfully taught to the NC.

State academies don't have to follow the national curriculum either, as far as I'm aware - and almost all of the state schools are academies now. However, I think most do pretty much stick to the national curriculum anyway.

No I can't "Name one private school in England that does not enter their students for GCSEs (and A Levels if the school goes up to 18)." Jemima! I said that private schools don't have to follow the NC.I didn't say they don't enter their students for exams.

Following the NC isn't just about content . If you follow it you have to learn things in a certain order. It's very detailed. Home educated children can learn in the order that suits them and then can go beyond the NC (like lots of private schools) .They can take their History GCSE (or IGCSE) at 12 id they like, but they might not be ready for Physics until 17. It doesn't matter.

This is a fundamental importance of home ed. DS1 was doing maths above his “age”, national curriculum wise, long before he could read. Schools following the NC would have forced him to read which would have potentially destroyed his love of books that he now has. DS1 reads very well now and reads encyclopaedias for fun, so clearly learning to read slightly later than in a school hasn’t hindered him.

Name one private school in England that does not enter their students for GCSEs (and A Levels if the school goes up to 18)

Summerhill

Only pupils that choose to be entered sit any exams at all

Yes they only enter students who want to do exams. But I didn't think that woukd meet Jemima's criteria as they enter some students.

www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

Name one private school in England that does not enter their students for GCSEs

Acorn in Stroud? Brockwood Park? Sands School?

Statistics show that abused children often go on to be abusers, so I wonder how people would feel if every person who was abused as a child, then had to accept random and regular checks (at school or not) to make sure their children are not being abused. This would allow full body check and speaking alone with children.
There would be outrage, and in my opinion, quite rightly so, but, it could save that one child ......
Why should a whole group of people, who have already had plenty to deal with in their life be subjected to constant intrusion in their lives because of what 'may' happen?

Statistics show that abused children often go on to be abusers

No they don't.
Statistics of convicted abusers show a high percentage were abused as children. But those stats do not include people who were abused and who do not go on to abuse.

Yep, that's exactly what I said. You have just changed it round to the other way.
But my point still stands, why should a collective group of people be treated as criminals simply because of what 'might' happen?

No, you have misunderstood the statistics and are misusing them to try to prove a point.

Safeguarding is not about treating any group as criminals. Thats just hyperbole.

Many jobs require a DBS, do we stop doing that in case people are offended and think they are being treated as criminals?

But home education isn't a job, you are not employed and make no profit. You are not caring for other peoples children, you're caring for your own. To that end, does that mean ALL parents should have a DBS?
Let's face it, there plenty of time outside of school for the children to be abused and let's face it, schools don't pick up on abuse cases enough. This question has cropped up a fair few times on this thread but no one seems to want to answer it 🤷🏼‍♀️

A point which you are ignoring. Should any group, be that home educators or adults abused as children, be subjected to 'checks' just because there is a small possibility that a child 'may' be abused?
By asking parents to have a DBS check, and regular interrogations, they ARE being treated as criminals, and this is the under the guise of safeguarding.
As I said, if the Government stated all adults who were abused as children should have the exact same checks and must register in the same way they are talking about for home educators, there would be so much uproar. But because it's about another law abiding community, no one cares and as this thread has shown, people are just closed minded.

This question has cropped up a fair few times on this thread but no one seems to want to answer it

That simply is not true, it's been answered lots of times.

The answer is in two parts: given what a huge amount of child abuse is only picked up on because the children are in school, surely that proves that school is a hugely important safeguarding system for flagging abuse, and if children are not in school, something needs to replace that?

Second, given the school safeguarding system is not perfect (as much abuse is missed), is that not proof of how essential safeguarding is, and that we need more safeguarding, not less?

I refer you back to what I've said at least twice in this thread: the argument "safeguarding is pointless because whatabout all the abuse cases that safegarding misses, so you might as well have zero safeguarding" is like saying "it's pointless to lock your front door because what about all the burglaries that happen when people did lock their door, so you might as well leave your front door wide open."

Would you leave your house unlocked just because locks aren't 100% effective?

So again, if more safeguarding is needed then surely a DBS should be carried out on all parents and all those involved with children in any way.

At no point have I said less safeguarding is needed.

By asking parents to have a DBS check, and regular interrogations, they ARE being treated as criminals, and this is the under the guise of safeguarding.

you think having a DBS check is being treated as a criminal?
I can't think of any position involving substantial contact with children where a DBS is not required.

All these positive comments on here and still only 29% think this is rigged.

To be fair, when I’m using the app the ability to vote isn’t possible. It’s only when I’m logged in on the site that I can do so. I wonder if many people on the thread, whatever they think, don’t have the ability to vote due to using that app

Should any group, be that home educators or adults abused as children, be subjected to 'checks' just because there is a small possibility that a child 'may' be abused?

Yes. How many abused children are enough to warrant safeguarding, in your opinion? Do you understand that prevention keeps numbers lower than no prevention?

All these positive comments on here

Yes but from a small number of posters. Presumably lots of people are reading and voting but not commenting, since the small number of loudly pro-HE posters are dominating the debate.

The problem is that if parents have never sent their DC to a formal school, there is currently no welfare check that the LA can do (unless the family is reported to Social Services. This means that in those (very few) cases where abuse is present, it can easily carry on for years undetected.
My SIL’s family member has “home educated” all three of their DC’s: all three are able to read, write, do basic maths and use a computer, and that’s it! They don’t do educational visits or use any home-schooling groups, so they are also incredibly unsocialised with other children and awkward with adults and will have issues later on, I’m sure, so in this case, I feel that NOT socialising their DC’s is a form of abuse in itself…
All this because the family member just couldn’t be bothered to enrol them in school!

Have you reported this abuse to the LA?