to think home ed families are going to have to accept more oversight?

[DrZaraCarmichael]

To try to prevent more cases like Sara Sharif. Taken out of school - where teachers were raising concerns - and then apparently fell off the radar.

Yes children's services have to look long and hard at themselves but taking a child out of school, especially when there has been previous SS involvement, has to raise a whole field of red flags surely??

I can see how families who are home educating for the right reasons and who have nothing to hide will see this as intrusive and unnecessary. But something has to change, right?

We home educated DS for a period due to bullying and I was very grateful for the support we got from the LA lady. She gave us really good advice and practical ways to do things better as well as signposting to useful resources.

I appreciate not everyone will have the same positive experience - but when families refuse to engage with help it can indicate concerns. Not always deliberate abuse like in Sara's case, but a mistrust of authorities can mask underlying mental health issues. It's also poor education and doesn't prepare children for adult life.

I remember the thread on here, and the outrage, about a school wanting to set eyes on children who’d been moved school, but then hadn’t started after the holidays due to illness.

Despite numerous people pointing out it was a common way for children to slip through the net there was reams of posters furious on the OPs behalf.

Everyone always says after incidents like this about how more should be done, schools should be more on the ball, yet there’s outrage if a school reports a comment or speaks to Ss or wants to check up on a child nobody has set eyes on for weeks and weeks and weeks.

In this case though SS’s refusal to act on clear, repeated problems is the major issue.

Huge problem getting SS involved when there is suspicion of neglect etc. Huge problem in recruitment and conditions for SWs. Ultimately evil people are responsible, which is not to say the system should not function better.

HE refusing any monitoring sounds very like domestic abusers isolating there partner from any access to friends family anoutside agencies. I'm not accusing or implying abuse from the anti monitoring HE on this thread. What your stance is doing though is providing cover for HE who are abusive.

In this case, the child had been in mainstream school and was taken out to be “home-schooled” and was failed…
But there’s a loophole in the Law!
If you’ve never registered your DC in a school, there are NO CHECKS that the LA or LEA are required to do.
The whole area of birth registration being matched to a school enrolment needs to also be addressed - how many children are we unaware of with regards to their living conditions if there are no checks because they have never been enrolled in a school?

I'm sure there are checks on children who are never registered for school - we did not register my eldest for school and apply for a place because we were living in England but had had an offer accepted on a house in Scotland where the intake is different and he would not start for another year. It's a while ago now as he's 21 but I'm sure I had a call from someone at the council asking whether we were aware of the process and wanted to apply. No follow up when I explained hte situation though, and as I say I may be misremembering.

Schools can also be life risk for other children. Children with school based trauma who are suicidal at being forced into school. Parents at their wits end and being made ill by a system that is making their child ill and which despite fighting for the support their child needs often gets no where. Parent left with no choice but to give up work to home educate a child so damage by school that they fear anyone they see as school authorities figure. These people turning up at the child safe place (home) to do welfare checks is going to cause them more trauma and make the one place they feel safe feel unsafe. The irony of when they didn't care about the child's welfare when the child was harming themselves because of school in the first place.

I think primarily it should be remembered that this is a child who was on the radar of social services before she was even born.

A child who’d been in care multiple times, who had a sibling that was removed from the family permanently and who lived with a father known for domestic violence.

The debate over schools and HE and what checks are or aren’t necessary are a red herring in this case.

This is a child who had been known to SS her whole life, who’d have numerous interventions, was known to live in a dangerous home and had had recent facial bruising reported.

She shouldn’t have been allowed to fall off SS’s radar for so much as a long weekend. It shouldn’t have mattered if her father claimed she was ill, removed her to HE, moved her to a different school or anything like that - any change should have been a massive massive red flag. Her contact with a SW should already have been at such a regular level it shouldn’t have mattered - they should have been there setting eyes on her.

That abject failure from SS must not be allowed to be lost in the debate about HE rules.

And what happens to schools where a child who goes to school fails that yearly exam ?

Children's Commissioner being interviewed on the TV this morning and asked what measures she would put in place - she mentioned a compulsory register of home educated children and monitoring as the very first measure she would introduce.

Also a lot more about information sharing between local authorities.

I think the reason some home educating parents are against an increase in monitoring in because their children have been harmed by school, cahms etc., and they no longer trust the state.

I have ended up having to home educate my daughter after she had an horrific first year at secondary, I can't tell how much the school didn't care that she was becoming increasingly mentally ill. She was having multiple lengthy meltdowns (complete loss of control screaming and flailing about while in a dream state for hours at a time) through the night and in the morning of school days. She had panic attacks at school, but wasn't allowed to speak to me after, just made to get back to class immediately. She was verbally and physically assaulted at school. She had her bag grabbed from her by some boys who pretended the contents were sex toys, being a young for her age, naive autistic girl, she found that ultra distressing. She started self harming. My many emails were largely ignored, her tutor responded, but never so much as asked her how she was doing.

Also re 'educational neglect', well she was being educationally neglected at school. Big time! One of many examples, she was in a mixed ability maths class, she didn't understand a word the teacher was saying (she's about 4-5 years behind in maths). I was told it didn't matter, about half the children in the class were in the the same position, the important thing was the more able children were modelling more advanced maths to them.

Eventually I got the school's attention when, in desperation, I contacted the attendance woman and said 'aren't you going to fine me'. She kept suggesting I home educated. In the end I had no choice. My daughter attempted suicide, finally got an appointment with cahms, which was a disaster. I'm left with a very mentally ill child with learning difficulties and autism. At that point I was far more concerned with her mental health. The officious, untrained, clueless person from the home ed department of the LA does not know what is best for her, nor does she care. I just don't trust the state to act rationally or in her best interests.

I would love for there to be some suitable school or alternative provision for my daughter. There isn't though and sending her back to a mainstream state academy would be an utter disaster for her.

This is put so well.

This has all been tried before. I absolutely agree that it should be in place but I'll believe it when I see it.

Only if they are known about. I used to do that job. We got informed about children by health care workers but if people move, don't have their children registered at a GP, or at Nursery for instance, then no one knows they are there.

No checks. I've home educated my three children in Scotland from the beginning and there is no contact with the LA or anyone at all.

Sara's case has nothing to do with home ed and everything to do with a child being failed over and over again by SS and the family courts. Her father's abusive behaviour was known about before she was even born and they still sent her to live with him. That's where the issue lies.

I'm conflicted on the idea of more oversight. I do think it's mad that those who home ed from the start have absolutely no contact with the LA or anyone else, but equally, so many who have to home educate their children have to do so because schools don't work for their children, and the LA has failed them too.

The only way I'd be completely happy with a system of registration and regular checks is if the people with the oversight were trained in both SEN understanding, and knew a lot about the different styles of home education. It doesn't look like school, and it doesn't have to to provide an excellent education. Most people don't understand this, so I wouldn't want them being the people who decide whether home educators are doing a good job.

Two things can be true.

The family courts and the way in which they are weaponised against victims of abuse, largely by better resourced men, are a disgrace. Years of reporting restrictions have also kept them safely behind closed doors, free to implement unproven pseudoscience claims such as "parental alienation", free to call "experts" who lack real, relevant expertise. The limited reporting now allowed is only beginning to report some of the scandalous cases. I agree that SS/family courts seem squarely to blame for sending yet another victim back to their abuser in the case of Sharif.

Children being home schooled should be entitled to some oversight and checks. Most of the children I know who were home schooled fully or partially were withdrawn from mainstream school for SEN reasons. I suspect this is the commonest reason and such children by their nature have additional vulnerabilities. The lack of any involvement or checking from school welfare services/social services is something I found quite shocking and so did most of their parents. As one of my friends told me - she could have murdered all three children and nobody official would have noticed.

Absolutely spot on- Plus parent/s need to be of a standard where they are capable of educating a child to the required standards too.

Sara's suffering is beyond horrific, she never stood a chance as her birth mother was also with a second violent man, so poor Sara was removed and placed from the frying pan into the fire of her father's hideously violent home

The birth mother should have put her sweet child before a violent boyfriend.

Sara should never have been placed with her violent father's new family.

NOT good enough.

''Lessons will be learned''

Yeah yeah yeah...change the bloody record.

Baby P, Victoria Climbie, Daniel Pelka - on and on and on.

Well I’m a walking red flag then - despite being the safeguarding lead at work.

This kind of hysterical knee jerk reaction is pathetic.

Saying that all HE families need safeguarding implies that these kids are unsafe without any evidence what so ever - so the parents have to prove they are not abusing their kids. I don’t want to live in a society where parents are looked at as potential abusers and have to offer their children up to government scrutiny

How would that pan out? Would the kids have to be stripped naked and checked for marks? Would little girls be subject to a hymen test to make sure she wasn’t being sexually abused? Where would the limit be?

School is not the safety net that people think it is- as what happened to the little girl this thread was originally about.

HE still attend anti natal appointments
Still attend their ultrasound scans
Still attend hospital at the birth
Still see the midwife after birth
Still attend six week check up
Still see the HV
Still see the GP
Still see the dentist
Still attend A&E
Still attend college & uni

They are not off grid

The problem isn’t HE families it’s AGAIN - SS and other governing bodies that KNEW this child had issues but let her slip through the cracks.

The bias and ignorance on this thread towards HE families is ridiculous, The state curriculum isn’t fit for purpose. I’ve three kids. One went through state school - two are at independent. I was kicked out of school without a single GCSE. My exhusband had mediocre GCSE. We both own our own business. Nothing we learned in school contributes them.

Also as a side note my friends kids go to a Steiner school. Your tiny brains would fall out if you knew how they educated there

Two things can be true.

They can.

However, social services and the family courts mustn’t be allowed to use changes to HE to pretend it would have been the solution in this case.

This was a violent man with escalating behaviour that should have been stopped many years ago. Allowing them to pretend that some checks by a welfare officer would have saved Sara would simply be allowing their abject failures over years to be minimised.

Sara was on SS’s radar before she was even born. She shouldn’t have fallen from their radar under any circumstances - regardless of school or no school a social worker should have been having very regular contact with her. School holidays, periods of illness etc should not have mattered either - her situation should have dictated regular face-to-face visits with her SW.

Too often in these cases one minor detail is allowed to become the focus and that takes away from the repeated failures. HE is likely to be that detail in this case when it’s not the reason she was failed.

No idea how you would manage checks on home schooled children. I imagine lots of missed home visits and a waste of staff resources unfortunately. And if it's not regular enough, or with a consistent person, not sure how a lot of changes in behaviour or appearance will be noticed.

Oh I agree entirely on the Shariff case - the family courts should not be allowed to hide behind HE but I have no doubt that will be the spin.

I just also think that HE children are entitled to at least some of the safeguarding/checks that a school should provide (and did provide in the Sharif case - not the school's fault that action was not properly taken).

And all the ridiculous hyperbolae from PP about SS attending antenatal checks for future HE children doesn't change that. The whole point of safeguarding is there should be no sacred castes. Currently this is a gap for many HE children.

Thing is there can be multiple truths. There is absolutely no doubt here that social services fucked up massively - that is the overriding thing I’ve taken from this. I also think this will be a direct consequence of austerity and stretched public services.

It also doesn’t surprise me that it is Surrey county council as their children’s services have been previously rated as inadequate and the council seem to have a general approach of under funding services for children (eg automatic reflections of ECHPs unless you take them to court), large cuts to health visiting service etc.

But I also think there should be tighter controls of home ed as an extra safety net.

As I’ve said I agree with more checks for home education but off the back of this recent case the focus needs to be on social services and family courts . They placed a child with an unsuitable carer and then despite being in school and concerns raised SS didn’t help ? Home education seems to have been towards the very end sadly. Not focusing on family courts and SS but HE in those circumstances is wrong it’s like blaming some other random factor that happened shortly before the awful murder.

I don't know what has changed policy wise but when I was a child home schooling was rare and did involve vistis a couple of times a year from the LEA Welfare office. (Including one to one conversations with the child).

A friend who withdrew her eldest from school about 30 years ago (he would have been primary age) had visits from the local authority service - not sure how frequent.

Friends who have withdrawn children from mainstream in the last 20 years seem to have little or no engagement, support or involvment from local authorities - hence one friend saying she could have murdered all three children without the local services even knowing.

I wouldn't say a visit a couple of times a year from an experienced welfare officer was intrusive or a waste of resources - could be considered a cheap education option compared to a child being in mainstream.

If there is a debate to be had about HE children then it should be had away from this case is my point.

It mustn’t be allowed to cloud the abject failures, repeated ones over many years, that Sara suffered.

We cannot allow anyone to come out with changes to HE under the pretence that it would have saved this child, because it wouldn’t. Social services and the family courts had numerous chances to intervene over her whole life.

Pretending that a few more checks from a HE welfare officer or a change to disallow removal from the school role would have made a difference when they’d ignored numerous clear massive issues be allowing them to insult the child further.

The one thing that all the high profile cars have is that these children are known - well known - to socials services. That’s the common denominator, not schools or HE or anything else. Well known to social services and repeatedly failed by them.

That fact needs addressed without any muddying of waters.