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?

Yes, I agree that there are children who have mental health issues who are no longer attending a school. And some who have been failed by local authorities in regards to EHCP provision or other duties.

Nobody knows how many because there hasn't been a national system of monitoring and checks to ascertain why - and if nobody knows who, where or why, nobody can help - whether that is by providing alternative education, MH support, family support, obtaining EHCPs or ticking off a box to say the child is receiving a great education from an engaged and proactive parent - if nobody looks, nobody can say why or how many are.

The data gathering could actually provide evidence to inform and support better approaches towards educating and safeguarding children such as those - without good data, it's like blaming cholera on bad luck because there's no evidence to suggest that there's a problem with a particular area's water supply because nobody's looked so can't see geographical distribution.

There are also children who have either been withdrawn from school under the guise of elective home education or were not enrolled in the first place for the benefit of an abuser. And children who aren't actually in the country anymore, whether happy with family, trafficked, infibulated, forced into marriage or, frankly, dead.

It's not safe to continue to shrug our shoulders and say 'well, I'm sure the parent is doing a grand job, even though we don't even know for certain if the child is there. Abusers, radicalised people and some who just can't parent or educate effectively also claim to be home educating. This won't solve everything, but if it flags up a few children who are in danger from someone in their household, that's lives saved.

So, logically, you are saying that parents are not to be trusted around their own children.

Obviously, 'safeguarding trained adults' with DBS checks have never abused children before.

Except for Vanessa George, Jayden McCarthy, Josh Doherty, Julie and David Morris, Paul Shinn, Mark Blackie etc etc

But there's a distinct difference between offering to have a child for a once in a blue moon playdate and someone who seeks to home educate so they can exploit vulnerable children. One is a random, short term event. The other is a planned out, long term arrangement.

I know it's extremely rare but some people do target the education and social care sectors directly to have access to children for exploitative reasons.

Personally I'd love to know every adult they're ever left with is DBS checked, that would be the gold standard of safety wouldn't it, that's possible anyway. But obviously that's unrealistic.

But given the amount of people who home ed is relatively small, and the added risk factors of having unsupervised, long term exposure to children outside of their family, I would have thought home ed parents would welcome it! I know I would.

@MrsAvocet if they are done directly through the government and not through a (cheaper) third party they are transferable. I had mine transferred for my last job as it was less than a year old. However the enhanced one I had done by a voluntary organisation wasn't transferable as it was done by a (cheaper) third party.

It is totally unfair.

I wonder what the threshold of convictions would be to still be able to homeschool?! Surely any conviction of violent crime or abuse would already be noted and the parents would be monitored etc anyway? I don't see what a dbs is going to achieve and I say this as someone who works in child safeguarding. Also, who is paying for the dbs? What happens if they refuse?

Our la don't do yearly checks, only checks done are if there is a safeguarding concern

All the abuse cases I can think of, the parents would have passed a DBS check. Anyone with a speck of critical thinking must see that this is a waste of money that is very unlikely to benefit anyone. I can only assume the government want to deter people from home education by the inference that they are abusers and the stigma and hassle of having to be vetted etc. It’s very naive to think that it would stop at a simple DBS check, this is only the stage one.

I largely agree with this. It's an expensive, too-broad-to-be-useful, too-easily-circumvented way to achieve better safeguarding for children pulled out of school.

I think there should definitely be any/better checks to replace the (mostly good) safety net of regular school attendance but this isn't it.

If the checks don't detect sufficient numbers of abusers, should we also do away with them for teachers and scout leaders etc?

@DontLookBackInAnger1
That's what I'm saying.
My home educated kids are only LEFT at regular groups run by professional people who run groups for other children's sessions (often after school type clubs which can run in the day for home Ed kids for example). For example tutors, bushcraft groups, sports groups etc that ARE run by people WITH all the relevant checks.

The only other kind of home Ed groups I have ever come across are those run by parents who also home educate. They are NOT drop off sessions. They are sessions where either the parents also take part, or where the parents watch/chat in the same room. So checks then aren't necessary.

Play dates, however, happen for school children and home Ed kids in the same way. I only leave my kids when I know the parents. As most parents who school educate do.

Recently a local man was found guilty of having indecent images of children. He ran a soft play type place for children that was all days and weekends. Not drop off sessions. Parentally supervised sessions with a cafe etc. He had a DBS check. I'm not saying that because there were home Ed sessions there. There weren't. It was just a run of the mill soft play place. People have plenty of opportunity. They don't need to find home Ed groups to get that.

No one is routinely checking babies and toddlers are they?

My 3 year old saw a GP for the first and last time at the 6-8 week check. I recall a HV popping in when she was a week or two old. She is basically unknown to any kind of system until she starts school. I don’t know anyone who has routinely seen GPs and HVs after the newborn stage other than children with health problems who regularly need to see doctors.

I don’t think DBS checks are the way to go but I do see the reason it is suggested. I wouldn’t be against someone having to check I am vaguely competent as a parent and not displaying any red flags … EXCEPT that I can see it becoming a bit of a minefield (plus who on earth would be checking up on every single child in the U.K.?).

Not RTFT but I'm guessing it's because there won't be a chance for the school to pick up on any signs if the child doesn't attend school, so they basically become invisible and forgotten.

They can help keep people out of those areas who have already been caught and convicted of something or where suitable suspicions have been raised. It is only a small part of the overall child protection though. The two people I know who have been convicted of offences against children both where in roles where they will have had a clear DBS check. One of them concerns where ignored because they where nice and has a clean dbs.

When it comes to home Ed if a family member has concerns against them severe enough to flag on a dbs to suggest they shouldn’t be home educating then they should already been known to services anyway!

But why, if a child has only one check up visit a year from the LA, if any, do you think it's a bad idea to have another safeguarding measure in place?

I can see your point, but I don't understand why you're actively against it? When surely you acknowledge that not all children who are registered as home educated are actually home educated in the manner that you describe. Do you acknowledge that some are "home educated" to exploit and avoid institutions picking up on abuse?

They should find other ways to monitor the home schooled child such as a review meeting and medical . I don't think DBS will meet the aim of protecting the child from being invisible and being abused at home

I don't think that DBS checks would be particularly useful, but I do think that the LA should carry out regular checks on all home educated children. Someone outside of the family should be keeping an eye on these kids.

I think I did a terrible job of formatting that post and amalgamated my post with another posters. I'm saying if you think any child who isn't in regular contact with a paid safeguarder - as is the case for homeschoolers- it makes sense that you would have to apply this logic to sahps with small children, as they are in the same boat. And that is clearly a ridiculous proposition.

These days you need DBS for so many things anyway! I have to have one for: being on parent committee for the local nursery school (no contact with the kids), anything involving going into kids school, lots of jobs request them almost just in case.

It's really not intrusive and as a pp said, adds to the scrutiny reflecting that sadly home ed has a record of being used as a cover for abuse.

Remember. A kid attending school is seen, they are on the radar with people outside the home.

A home ed kid has the potential to be invisible to outside help.

Having worked in the public sector, I can assure you, they won't be introducing this as a way of spending money they don't have.

It will be because evidence, data, examples, show that children, registered as being home educated, are at a great risk of abuse. I think many on this thread opposing it are home educators in the truest sense. You are providing your kids with a safe, secure and effective education.

But it's naive and ignorant to not see there are other examples of "home educated" children who don't receive a quality education and who aren't in safe or secure environments. They are "home educated" to avoid authority intervention and to have unchecked access to vulnerable children. For those situations, DBS checking the parents is a good idea. Lots of abusers will have other offenses that may trigger LAs to have a closer look into the set up/family.

Sahps with small children are technically still under the health review team via things like 2 year check etc.

If a parent refuses all contact with HVs, doesnt send a child for vaccines, and there are other warning signs, HV team can look for ways to introduce other support.

I find it quite depressing that so many HE parents seem to think that their right to privacy trumps the rights of children to be safe.

DBS of course is not perfect or fool proof, but it is ONE tool we have alongside others. A child being seen regularly in school is a massive safeguard, which we know because of the numbers of children about whom concerns are raised by teachers. If you take that away, you need to replace it somehow.
And no, I don't think regularly attending HE groups is an adequate replacement - people can never believe that their nice, well spoken friend/neighbour might be abusing a child.

The amount of safeguarding concerns and alerts that come through schools is unbelievable. Truly.

Then, imagine what's going on in families where the parents know there's no eyes on them.

The most basic right of a child is safety. And if checking parents of children who are potentially isolated can increase that safety, even marginally, surely that's a positive step, for those kids.

If you home educate your own child you shouldn't need a DBS but if you're teaching others (say a study group) then you should be DBS'ed like people who run activities for children.

Is there no backlog of DBS checks? What happens if you "fail"? Presumably some parents have been to prison or have convictions.

If you don't work in social services or a relevant sector (and I apologise if you do) then the abuse cases you'll be thinking of are the few which make the news. Often those which are deliberate, malicious, and have been purposely concealed from social services/school/GP.

They aren't representative of the majority of child abuse cases. The ones which are noticed and acted upon by social services generally involve at least one parent who presents obvious problems and would likely not pass a DBS check. This might be substance abuse or extreme mental health problems. Quite often a parent does have prior convictions (or someone else with access to the child- mum's boyfriend for example- has them).

DBS checks are not in any way wholly sufficient for identifying potentially dangerous people, but I think it's wrong to say they'd have no impact. In any case, the answer would surely be more stringent checks rather than none at all.