Thursday 25 February 2010

The chances of the CSF bill getting through the Lords in a hurry

I don't intend to comment directly on the case of Khyra Ishaq, although I suspect my conclusions are somewhat different from those of many home educators. I was simply wondering what effect this case would have upon the progress of the Children, Schools and Families Bill. At a guess, I would say that it makes it almost certain that this bill will whizz through the Lords practically unopposed. I wouldn't be surprised if it does not even get entangled now in the wash-up, but passes on a tide of popular indignation with the shortcomings of the present arrangements for monitoring home education. Public opinion will be fiercely against unregulated home education and I can't see many politicians wishing to stand up and claim that there is no need for any change in the current law. The home education angle of the Khyra Ishaq case is likely to be in many people's minds and after a horrible murder like this, a lot of us want some sort of scapegoat. What could provide a better scapegoat than unregulated home education?

I have been watching the Conservative position with a little suspicion. Gove, the Shadow Education Spokesman seemed to be promising one home educator that the bill would not pass while containing the section on home education. The following day though, in the Times, he had varied this to stating that the Tories would not introduce legislation on the home education. Now, according to Mike Fortune-Wood, he has promised that even if the CSF bill is passed, the next Conservative government would repeal it. I find this unlikely. Following the outcry over Khyra Ishaq, I am guessing that most Conservatives will be running for cover, not wanting to appear soft on safeguarding. All this is irrelevant to the facts in the case; the existing powers of social services for example. I am thinking of what will happen, not whether it will be good that it happens, or whether it should happen.

I have said before that I think that the Conservatives will be pleased if this bill goes through, because then they will be relieved of the need to pass a similar bill of their own when they next form a government. This has been a great situation for them. They have been able to curry favour with a section of the electorate and it will not have any practical consequences for them, they know perfectly well that this government can force the bill through regardless. As I say, I think that it will be rather harder to find a Tory MP or Lord after today who is prepared to stand up and be counted on this issue. They will be wanting to appear concerned about vulnerable children, this always plays well with the man in the street. I am expecting most of them to claim that this case has changed things and that they can no longer side with home educators against new regulations.

My own view is quite simple. Wicked people will always find a way to harm children. Everybody, both militant home educators and those opposing unregulated home education, seem intent upon blaming "the system". The home educators are saying that this is a failure by social services to use their existing powers and the professionals are saying that the child died because they lacked the necessary powers. The responsibility for Khyra Ishaq's death actually rests firmly with those who killed her. The guilty party is not Birmingham social services, it is Angela Gordon.

19 comments:

  1. "The guilty party is not Birmingham social services, it is Angela Gordon."

    Or possibly a social support system that can allow a person with 'diminished responsibility' to look after five children with no additional support or a society that is so fragmented it's unaware of or doesn't care about what's happening next door, or didn't prevent Angela Gordon getting to point where she could do this to a child etc etc. We are all our brother's (or sister's) keeper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, except that this depression which caused Ms. Gordon to have diminished responsibility, apparently didn't start until after she had killed her daughter. If I killed my child and then claimed that this had made me so depressed that I couldn't be convicted of murder, most people would suspect a scam or perhaps a shoddy deal with the Director of Public Prosecutions. This was the action of a wicked individual, not a symptom of systemic failure in this or that departmenet of local government.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's amazing how blind they can be when it suits them, isn't it? Khyra was seen by social workers three months before her death and judged to be healthy and well. How can they think an annual visit would have helped? Their continued use of the deaths of children in order to get through legislation they already wanted for other reasons is disgusting. It sickens me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Couldn't agree more, Simon, about whose fault it is. It's a shame the authorities ignored what was staring them in the face, but the parents are responsible for killing this child and abusing the others.

    As for the Conservatives, I'm no great fan but I'd like to think they'll expose Balls and co's attempts to politically capitalise on the tragic death of a young girl for what they are, rather than backtrack and cower in a corner. This case has nothing to do with HE, and the proposed draconian legislation would have made no difference to the outcome.

    P.S. Despite yesterday's post, in today's you appear to have slipped into referring to bill as if it was only the small HE section, not the whole thing. The whole thing needs debating and scrutinising properly in the Lords, because it was not done in the Commons. Even if, as you suggest, the HE part is suddenly so much more important due to an unrelated murder (or if you must, manslaughter) then all the more reason it should be scrutinised properly!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, the reason that I only referred to the home education part of the bill is that that and sex education seem to be the only bits anybody cares about. It went through the Commons without any problem and most of it was hardly remarked upon. I suspect that home education and sex education are likely to be the focus in the Lords as well. I have actually ploughed through the whole thing and I like some of it. In practice though, it probably won't affect schools or education much even if it is enacted.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Simon says- Public opinion will be fiercely against unregulated home education and I can't see many politicians wishing to stand up and claim that there is no need for any change in the current law.

    the public may want some inspection of home educators but will not like the amount of tax payers/council money this will cost.They would want that money spent on they children's school.With deep spending cuts coming for the councils where will they cut? schools? or the home education bit? the public dont care about a few home educators and would not want to waste tax payers money on us! you ask people money for school or home educators?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not everyone in the media appears to have been taken in, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100027537/totalitarian-propagandists-exploit-khyra-ishaq-case-to-discredit-homeschooling/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course the child's parents/guardians were to blame, and on the face of it I'd put it a lot stronger than manslaughter. I wrote elsewhere that I would have preferred to see the murder charge tested before a jury.

    Instead, the perpetrators have been let off the hook lightly; I strongly suspect political interference in order to bring the case to public attention at an early and convenient juncture.

    You can call me cynical or paranoid; long ago, I, too, would have dismissed the suggestion I have made, but now I think it's well within the bounds of possibility.

    As for Birmingham social services, the best I can say of them is that while they did not commit murder, they are a craven bunch of lazy incompetents. They highlight the reason that such people should not be allowed near home educators.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think it was less a politically motivated decision and more that they did actually want these people to be convicted of killing the child. The jury were pretty mixed and what sometimes happens is that Caribbean jurors refuse to convict other Caribbeans. Unfortunate, but there it is. There is also the Muslim angle and this case has been discussed widely on various Islamist websites as being part of a wider conspiracy and the idea has been put forward that these two characters are being prosecuted because they are Muslim. One trial already collapsed and I think that some people were anxious that this did not happen again. It would only take three people to hold out for acquittal and the trial would be deadlocked. I suspect that they will get life in any case, so it is of academic interest what the actual conviction was for.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ssociated Press - February 25, 2010 4:54 PM ET

    DENVER (AP) - Gov. Bill Ritter is backing legislation to provide more oversight of social workers investigating child abuse cases.

    A bill sponsored by Sen. Linda Newell would create an independent office to investigate complaints about how cases are being handled. Ritter said Thursday it would help provide transparency, consistency and ideas for improving the state's child welfare system.

    Ritter ordered a review of the system two years ago following the deaths of children who had been involved in the system. Creating an oversight office was 1 of the recommended changes.

    In the last three years, over 30 children whose families had been involved in the system died of abuse or neglect. One was 7-year-old Chandler Grafner, who starved to death after being locked in a closet.

    Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The schools did all they could to bring their concerns to the attention of the relevant authorities.

    "These concerns were not taken sufficiently seriously and were not adequately investigated," she added.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have just read the court report of the care proceedings on the living children, which sets out what happened in some detail. It is pretty distressing to read. In this case it appears that the school were the only ones who acted openly and they really did their best, but it also appears that social services were confused as to whether the reported cause of concerns was a purely educational matter as opposed to a child protection concern, so they left it to the home ed department to supervise.
    Although lots of home educators have spent months saying this case is irrelevant, I cannot see how it won't add support to the case for legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It will add support to the legislation, Julie. The situation regarding the various areas of responsibility is a frightful muddle and needs to be cleared up. It si also plain that whatever social services did or failed to do, it was the school which was crucial in spotting all the problems. There are many cases in which this happens and the child is actually saved as a result. This case shows that the school ws the most important safety net.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Julie says-also appears that social services were confused as to whether the reported cause of concerns was a purely educational matter as opposed to a child protection concern, so they left it to the home ed department to supervise.

    That cant be right leaving a case like that to the education to supervise when alarm bells shoud have been ring children stealing looking for food all the time? school showing real concern over these children? its soical services that are to blame if a child keeps stealing food they is something wrong very wrong!

    Although lots of home educators have spent months saying this case is irrelevant, I cannot see how it won't add support to the case for legislation.

    This case has nothing to do with home education it is a failure of soical services and if as you claim new legislation comes about how will that help over worked soical workers who will have more work to do visting law abiding parents. i think they get so knee deep in paperwork that they miss more children who are in danger You got to target you visits not meet every one Julie!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rumours are that Political news team of BBC are on alert to a possible date for Election to be announced over the weekend. If this happens bill will fail!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simon says-it was the school which was crucial in spotting all the problems. but when they report it to SW nothing much was done. so lets say visit takes place education tick boxer fails family he report it to SW and nothing much will be done? they also have to many cases as well because box ticker will fail family who are doing ok. it create to much work and real childen in danger will be missed

    ReplyDelete
  17. "also appears that social services were confused as to whether the reported cause of concerns was a purely educational matter as opposed to a child protection concern"

    A child dropping from the 75th percentile to below the 25th percentile and having to hold his trousers up at school because he had lost so much weight? The mother telling the doctor that, despite this weight loss, the child was eating too much and had also written to the school telling them not to let him have seconds at lunch time. The school getting round this by organising larger helpings for the first serving. Either the school didn't report this to social services and failed as a safety net, or social services confused diet with education.

    ReplyDelete
  18. On 29th December 2007 a PC visited and said that K appeared healthy and was dressed in clean clothing. Just over a month later two EWOs inspected for an hour and found a classroom with a display board, no chairs, some basic readers, one or two books and no other teaching resources. He later agreed in writing that they were providing a suitable education despite not receiving further evidence in writing that the mother had agreed to provide and a failed attempt to visit again. Do you really think that seeing the children would have made any difference if they were fit and well a month before? The problem here was that one EWO was responsible for 350 families. He could not use the powers he currently has so why should he be given more powers? What he needs is resources so that the initial visit and lack of evidence of suitable education could be pursued instead of ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Given how stretched social services are at the moment, they'll collapse completely if they get an extra 50,000 children to deal with, even though pretty much all of then will have no need of attention. In that case, what are the chances of a social worker spotting the next abused child? I'd say it'll be even less than it was for the recent cases. If you were going to spend half a billion pounds over the next ten years to save abused children, would you just set up a bureaucracy? Or would you spend it on more staff and better training? Which would be more likely to save lives?

    Hard cases make bad laws, this was a hard case and doesn't justify a change in the law.

    ReplyDelete