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?

Are you sure about this? A parent educating their own child at home cannot be subject to a DBS check without making the same requirement of everyone who shares a dwelling with a child. Criminals have children. Sex offenders and shoplifters have children. Drug addicts, drunks and dangerous drivers have children. What possible sanction could there be?

@DontLookBackInAnger1

I don't have a major issue with a DBS check. I just feel that there is a lot of 'home educators are weird and either crazy religious or child abusers'.

I think DBS checks are pointless for parents. Neglectful parents won't be picked up on a DBS. Sexual predators, unless already caught, won't be picked up. If people have been caught previously abusing or for radicalisation etc then they will already be under observation I would hope!

I think it's more important that children are seen in the community. If a child isn't seen by a dr, dentist, some form of 'outside of the family' groups etc. that's a worry.
But they aren't suggesting DBS checks for people not attending the drs with children, or missing health visitor appointments (not that my second was ever seen by one unless I requested it).

I just think it's a box ticking exercise to cover official arses. The money could be spent on social care, child centres, support for children suffering mental health issues in schools, support for children who are more 'square pegs in a round hole'.

Too many people in this thread have totally misunderstood what a DBS check is. The reasoning proposed, as I understand it, suggests every parent and individual who has contact with a child should be DBS checked. It makes absolutely no sense to DBS check home educators…they are simply parents like all other parents.

The LA regularly checking in with a home educated kid is completely different thing to a DBS check. People should aware they are completely different types of intervention/safeguarding.

It's pointless and stupid. It isn't going to protect any children. At best it's going to create a lot more unnecessary work for the LEA Home Ed officers who generally only cover HE as a side job anyway and increase referrals to already over-burdened social services as a precaution.

If they honestly wanted to protect children they'd be making huge investments into social services who are massively overstretched, overworked etc but they won't.

The public, by and large, will agree with it because it won't affect them. They don't think they'll ever be in a situation where they'll be forced to use the lifeboat that is HE because their child is bullied, unwell, failed by school, have SEND or in need of mental health support.

Absolutely bang on. Empty token gesture.

Also as a teacher I'm against anything that removes parents rights to home educate. If our education system was evidence based, child centred and free from political meddling from every whim of a minister wanting to make his mark then there might be at least an argument against home Ed. But as it stands I can fully understand parents wishes to do it.

I can't see why you need a DBS to educate your child. They have nothing to do with education.

I don't understand what the purpose of this is to be honest. Unless it's to say that anyone & everyone"working" with any children must be treated in the same way. Surely it's not going to solve any issues around potential or current abuse in the home?

I suppose it's conceivable that someone who would not pass a DBS check could have their own children at some point after doing whatever it was, and then decide to home educate? Which might flag up a few potentially vulnerable children.

The only thing it seems to achieve really well is to let home educators know that they will be subject to a level of suspicion not endured by any other parent without meeting any marker of risky behaviour.

I think that's why some people like it.

So if you "fail" the DBS are you not allowed to home educate, or do you just have to submit to a DBS regardless of the outcome?

U too the next child whom is murdered by a parent is in the news,then everyone will say that the authorities should have done more to protect that child.

Home Ed Mum here.
Not Rtft but just popped on to say that this is very unlikely to happen.
Baroness Garden was scrutinising some proposed legislation about a register of Home educated children.
The draft bill (which I have read) doesn't mention DBS checks anywhere and noone is going to write a section into it because of Baroness Gardens remarks.
Politicians come out with daft and unpractical ideas in debates all the time and nothing comes of it. If it's not written into the bill, it's not on the table. Rhoda Grant MSP once said there should be a 9pm watershed on the internet for chrissakes.
It's also possible that Baroness Garden meant that Home Ed parents should have a DBS check to run a meet up or an activity involving other people's kids. Rather than needing a DBS check to take care of their own kids at home! Which would be a more sensible proposition (although still not in the bill)

Rhoda Grant MSP once said there should be a 9pm watershed on the internet for chrissakes.

😁 I mean, I could be a lot more productive.

How is this going to do anything? So if you got caught shop lifting once, 10 years ago when you were 19 are you going to be stopped from home schooling? If you're a known child abuser then surely you wouldn't be allowed to parent/keep a child anyway?? And if you're not known because you've kept it under wraps then a DBS is no use? Also the mother could put herself down as the home educator but then her visiting/live in partner be the abusive one.

I wonder how many children that have died/abused would actually have been saved by this - I'd hazard a guess at none. This is an idiotic idea to look like something is being done when it really isn't. The real answer costs a lot more money than this.

Should teachers feel their reputation is being tarnished by having to have DBS checks?

Someone asking you to have a check, because they acknowledge that you're keeping your child, potentially, quite isolated, is not a judgement on home schooling.

It's based on risk assessments for a minority of those children who are suffering abuse and have no means to communicate or reflect that. Therefore, a DBS, while it won't safeguard all at risk home educated children, will help the LA to risk assess the situation and intervene if needed.

You can't prioritise your feelings of insecurity around societies view of homeschoolers, over the children who are abused and kept away from institutions in order to conceal. You just can't.

Should teachers feel their reputation is being tarnished by having to have DBS checks?

That's not equivalent. A closer analogy would be having dbs checks for some teachers but not requiring them of others, who are considered less risky for arbitrary reasons.

YABVU. Home education regulation in this country is incredibly light touch - dangerously so. If you want to home ed your children, that’s up to you - but it poses a very real safeguarding risk to children with abusive parents, and should be far better scrutinised. DBS checks on parents are a sensible step.

I'll use your example.
That man then moves across the country. Not officially, but he's been in contact with somebody with children. Because he's got all this experience, he's really 'good' with the kids when they meet.

One of the kids has been finding school difficult and Mum is very short on money, so he suggests that if he moves in, he could look after the kid whilst she works. He advises her that all she has to do is tell the head that she will be home educating with immediate effect and there's nothing anybody can do to stop her, she doesn't have to register with the local authority, she can just remove the child and she won't have any further problems. And if it's done unofficially, she 'won't lose any universal credit top ups' or have to pay more council tax.
Kid gets offrolled.
Scumbag is in the girlfriend's home with her kid 'deschooling' whilst he gets the child's full trust by being the fun one who knows all the games. Maybe he even does a few spellings with the child or watches the occasional factual programme.
Nobody checks who is doing the actual home educating. But this bloke who would never be able to get a job in a school because of his conviction is free to be alone with a child who has nobody else to notice they aren't their usual self or is acting out some of the man's videos. Maybe it goes so well that he joins a Home Ed group. Starts out offering group things - lots of parents are impressed by him and feel that it's OK to continue with him in the group, perhaps having sleepovers or social things.
However, had a DBS been required, she'd have had him refusing to do it 'don't you trust me, it's not fair that men get judged but it's OK for women to spend time with their families' or he storms off. The fact that he refuses to do a DBS when it's a requirement could be ringing alarm bells with her when he was so very plausible all the rest of the time. Or somebody else notices he's there and is told 'oh yes, we home educate'. They report this because something doesn't feel right or they've heard stuff going on during the day. If it's a legal requirement to have a DBS, there's then grounds to start looking. And then the conviction shows up. Either way, that convicted abuser isn't going to be home educating that kid (who could be a 12-14 year old girl, not just a small child) and they've just been flagged up as seeking unsupervised contact with children.
It's just one example of how a requirement for a clear DBS to home educate could pick up a situation. But one example, if it happens, is at least one fewer crime against children. They won't do it if it's only the odd one or two brutalised kid - but if there are 50,000 EHE kids in the UK (I'm not using accurate figures because nobody has them, thanks to that absence of a requirement to register) and 0.1% of those are abused by somebody in the home who has a conviction that would show up on an enhanced check, that's at least 50 children being protected.

I'd prefer if home educators were randomly spot checked.

Should teachers feel their reputation is being tarnished by having to have DBS checks?

All teachers are DBS checked though, not some or a random selection.

So I'm assuming, the way forward is to dbs check all parents 🤷🏻 sounds reasonable

Is it a measure that has been floated and won't happen in reality because of the extra number of people required to carry it out? Is it designed to hopefully get some parents to think that perhaps their child should attend school instead?

And in my opinion this is the issue as the system stands now. There is no monitoring of the standard of education or the learning environment for home schooled children. While I’m sure most parents want the best for their children, it’s far too easy for abusive parents to keep their children out of school so their actions are not noticed. Homeschoolers should be subject to regular inspections in the same way as a normal school. A DBS check is nothing more than a lazy abdication of responsibility.

A dbs check is probably a bit pointless. I think there should be regular home checks though

But we've let these kids live with op for the first five years without a DBS or school involvement. And if they went to a council or private school they'd still live with op without a DBS check.

Well only those who've been caught

What is an extremist view, these days?