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?

Because I imagine there are loads more adults present than in the playground. Please correct me if HE clubs are drop and leave and expose kids to a wide range of social backgrounds. I am prepared to be proven wrong on this, as I say I am wondering about it.

There are many groups where you drop your children for the day. Some children love this, for others (many of whom are neurodiverse) this doesn't work and they are more confident around people they know.

I think it is emotive as you say.

Often the DC who have been removed from school have been badly traumatised and made very unwell so not safe or well educated. But noone cares as long as they attend school. Minute you keep them home where they are safe and can be well educated then they want to check up on them! It can be pretty galling!

They make such an ignorant/naive comment too to say they've never met a bad family. As if they or anyone would know! Abusers, especially of children and women, are incredibly good at coercive, controlling and deceptive behaviour.

I think if a child is withdrawn from school there should still be a way the safeguarding lead can make regular visits.

Some activities are drop and leave which increases as they get older. They are exposed to a much wider range of social backgrounds as mix with kids from all over rather than just one area.

Of course but that's not the point of this thread.

Personally I think the safeguarding lead would do better to spend their time safeguarding the DC suffering trauma in their own school primarily, rather than going around scaring traumatised DC being kept safe at home.

If there are concerns about the childs safety, absolutely!
If they are removed because the school have failed them, they have no rights whatsoever to make regular visits.
They are schools, not social workers.

Are you serious? The whole point of this thread is that some parents do not care about their children at all - they abuse & kill them - so in those circumstances of course teachers would care more about them than their own parents.

But without agencies checking this how do you know why a child has been taken out of school. No one’s having a go at homeschoolers, but there needs to be adequate safeguarding in place.

No it's not ignorant, it's based on my experience. Not something I've read in the Daily Fail that's got me all angry with no evidence.
Sara's case was horrific but there was a huge amount of evidence before she was removed from school.

Home education already includes safeguarding checks - when child is pulled out.

Most of those are not home educated children!

Just jumping in.....but I quit a job because, amongst many ethically and morally related reasons, they made a great business (and still do) out of running certified educational courses for kids from primary age; many of whom who are otherwise educated down at 'the mosque'.

Educationally, they get the results, but I was too uncomfortable with the segrational (self-imposed) aspects and majorily the desire to flip off the taxman.

The resonance of Sara Sharif's abuse and the ease of using 'the mosque' or any church as a reason for withdrawing a child from mainstream ed/society rang in my ears.

But surely that includes all children in school holidays and all under 5s too?

Isn't the point of this thread about a child who was killed by her family. A child who had been abused her whole life (while attending school), was known to social services who had removed an older sibling from the danger but left her there to be abused.

A child failed by the system meant to support her.

A child who should have been protected.

Awful situation but seeing as she was failed by social services who are awfully underfunded I don't know why home education should be the scapegoat.

A. This doesn't address the problem of underfunded lack of staff in social services.
B. If we check up on families who have no history of risk, haven't had a safeguarding red flag but are home educating then even more resources get diverted from the children who need them

Twice. And seemingly elder full brother was adopted. Aside from the other full sibling that gone to Pakistani

I agree with your point but you are talking about extremism.
It's not the same thing.
What you are talking about sounds like an 'illegal school'.
Home education is for the majority of people, teaching very similar subjects to what they learn in school but at a pace the child can work with and in an environment where they are safe and happy.
Most parents have to satisfy the education authority that they are providing a suitable education on a regular basis.

This highlights that the appropriate legislation and powers are already present and that it really is a funding and workforce issue.

All the batshit ideas and assumptions of what home education is and isn't by people on this thread who don't seem to have any clue also gives some insight into why many home educators might be reluctant to engage with state involvement. The risk of encountering prejudice and ignorance from people in a position of power over them must be quite a gamble.

Like a lot of HE kids my kids go to Cubs/Scouts with kids who are at school. They go to camps etc and spend a lot of time together and have made lovely friends.

They go to church and have made friends with schooled children there.

We join a choir group for primary-aged children run by the council every year and they've made friends there.

They go to chess club at the local library and have made friends with school kids there.

They go to the park and make friends with the local kids there.

My eldest is autistic, but she's good at making friends because she's had the safety of home to learn confidence and do things at her own pace. She has to learn how to handle her sisters, who are VERY different from her personality-wise so there's plenty of ... negotiating that goes on with them.

My family's in NZ, so we've made trips over there, and they've made friends with their cousins, who they hadn't really met before.

My kids can talk to people of any age - they love chatting with our neighbours, most of whom are elderly.

The whole socialising thing that people think home ed kids don't get is just another myth.

I'm not going to pretend that every parent who says they're home educating their child is doing a good job. Like parents of schooled children there are those who are lazy and neglectful, and obviously we've seen what happened with poor Sara. But like parents of schooled children, the vast majority of home educators want what's best for their children, and either school has failed them, or they have decided that home is the best place for learning, and putting unnecessary boundaries in the way of that isn't going to help children like Sara.

As I've said previously, I don't object in principle to the idea of oversight. I just don't trust the government/LAs to make good rules, and I don't see how they can possibly provide the staff, given how thinly stretched services are already.

Ehat about those that were abused in school and in fear of authorities? Or those that are autistic and hate meeting new people? LA don't have enough qualified Education Psychologists to even deal with EHCP's, never mind trained in neurodiversity properly.

Good home educators live in a bubble, where they and their children mix with other good home educators. They seem unwilling to believe that some people remove their children from school for reasons other than to educate them.

This exactly. Fellow tribunal goer here.
Just to add that those kids who need most oversight are not those home educated but those that are left with no education (like ours for 3 years), not on roll anywhere, no help given (bc of tribunal ongoing) and not checked up on at all.
Truly ghosts.

The lessons to be learnt are that more social workers are needed which means they will have lower caseloads which means that more staff will be retained so you have strong, experienced safeguarding teams. This simple strategy is never implemented and 'reforms' are all about saving money