Wednesday 1 December 2010

School as a first line of defence against child abuse

Those of a certain age will recognise the following five names immediately; Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford, Kimberley Carlile, Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq. They are of course all little girls who were starved and tortured to death by sadistic stepfathers. The fact that in the last thirty five years or so, such cases are rare enough that we can remember practically every name of the children who were killed like this, tells us such crimes are rare. Is there anything else we can say about these cases? Is there a common factor which would enable us to spot such things happening and prevent them in the future? It is worth noting that only one of the above children was at school when she was killed. I have remarked before that school provides a layer of protection against cruelty and abuse, but I have the idea that many readers are sceptical about this.

I have been leafing through the report of the commission of inquiry which took place into Kimberley Carlile's death. This gives a very clear account of how safeguarding has operated for years in schools and how it can deter abuse. All this happened in 1986 and the system is even more effective now. Sometimes it fails. It failed Khyra Ishaq and Kimberley Carlile. For every such failure though, there are countless successes. The following extracts are taken verbatim from the report. They begin when Kimberley's brother told a teacher at his primary school that his stepfather had thrown him across the room.

The incident of X alleging to Miss Rouse on 9 January that he had been thrown across the room by his stepfather was discussed with Mr Cox. They decided to start monitoring X immediately.

Having been assured that he was not hurt, she waited until the next session, which was PE and then placed herself near him when he got changed into vest and pants. She looked for any sign of marks on his body which might have substantiated his claim, but saw none.

Monitoring involved paying extra attention to the child - his physical state, behaviour and conversation.

Teachers who are anxious about the health or development of a child report this to the headmaster. he then decides what action is to be taken and, if appropriate, communicates with the school nurse or the Education Welfare Services, who might inform Social Services.

Mr Hall (the stepfather) usually collected X from school, occasionally he was accompanied by Mrs Carlile. X never showed any reluctance to approach the man he called 'Dad'.

As will be seen from the above, schools operate a pretty effective monitoring system, looking out for abuse and other problems and referring them on to Social Services where they feel it to be necessary. Of course this is not perfect, no human system is that, but it certainly provides protection to children at school.

This monitoring is not widely advertised for fairly obvious reasons. Parents of children who might be giving cause for concern would be dismayed to realise that they were being covertly observed in this way. Those who really were intent on harming a child, would take extra care to conceal it and watch how they behaved near the school. It is however without doubt the case that many children are rescued from abusive situations in this way.

One of the fears of local authorities and other statutory agencies is that children who are being educated at home are deprived of the oversight of this informal monitoring scheme. Not that a home educated child is any more likely to be abused than the child at school, but that all those at school are being checked and monitored constantly in this way and have been for well over twenty five years (The above description was from events in early 1986). The worry is that a child not at school might not be seen by professionals as regularly as those who are at school. Home educated children do not have to have eye tests, hearing tests or the routine health check before they start school. It is also quite possible for a child not to be registered with a doctor.

32 comments:

  1. Old Webb says-The worry is that a child not at school might not be seen by professionals as regularly as those who are at school. Home educated children do not have to have eye tests, hearing tests or the routine health check before they start school. It is also quite possible for a child not to be registered with a doctor.

    A lot of these so called professinals are often nosy busy bodys out to cause a family trouble just becuase there home educate!
    going to school does not mean you will be better saved from abuse its often missed and when it is spoted nothing much is done! you live in a fairy tell world Webb. has the nice LA been telling you that home educated children do not see the doctor?

    parents who abuse will always find a way around any checks a yearly visit would not work so you have to increase the visit but to what? and would box ticking LA really spot anything? there missed the abuse with that girl yet went to house and had been told of real concern about her? but did nothing amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  2. So what do you advocate as an effective solution for this problem you see with home education? Do you have evidence that your proposed solution would be effective and not cause more harm than good?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'So what do you advocate as an effective solution for this problem you see with home education?'

    Only one of the terms of reference for Graham Badman's review of elective home education was specifically concerned with education. There is a huge amount of worry among those working for statutory agencies that home educated children are not getting the same amount of routine oversight as those at school. This is not a problem which, as you put it, I see with home education, but rather a driving force behind the desire to regulate it.

    I am pointing out here that a system does exist in schools for monitoring vulnerable children and that those educated at home are denied this particular safety net. In the past, some people commenting here have said that they do not think that this happens and so I thought I would provide a concrete example of how this works in practice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. old webb says-There is a huge amount of worry among those working for statutory agencies that home educated children are not getting the same amount of routine oversight as those at school.

    more like looking for more work in an attempt to save there jobs from being cut as the councils cuts are coming!LOL already been hearing of support staff at school being laid off and dinner helpers to!

    you live in a dream world Webb there are going to be no new laws on home education. there no money to waste on home educators!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "This is not a problem which, as you put it, I see with home education, but rather a driving force behind the desire to regulate it."

    OK then, what do you think of their proposed solution (registration, annual visit, speaking to the child alone, working with reference to 'Working Together to Safeguard Children', i.e. screening for abuse and neglect, etc)?

    Do you advocate this solution?

    Do you have evidence that your proposed solution would be effective and not cause more harm than good?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Simon wrote,
    "Is there a common factor which would enable us to spot such things happening and prevent them in the future? It is worth noting that only one of the above children was at school when she was killed."

    So is it your theory that some kind of monitoring of HE children would help in these types of cases? If so, why use these children as examples as none of them support your case?

    Maria Colwell - many neighbours and teachers contacted various agencies, she was seen but allowed to stay with her family despite appearing to be "almost a walking skeleton". School attendance did not help and other people reported the issue anyway so school was not needed to bring her situation to the attention of the authorities.

    Jasmine Beckford - Jasmine had been in the care of Brent social services for two-and-a-half years before she died - she was 4 when she died. School did not help and her situation and HE monitoring would not have kicked in. Despite not going to school she had become known to social services via other routes. Again school was not necessary.

    Kimberley Carlile - Kimberley was also 4 when she died so school obviously did not enter the equation again. Again, her situation had been made known to social services via other routes so school was not necessary anyway.

    Victoria Climbie - She was seen very frequently by social services despite never going to school in this country. Obviously school was not necessary to spot her danger.

    Khyra Ishaq - School failed to help this family too, though at least they did report that there were welfare issues. The family were known to the LA and were visited. Seeing the children is unlikely to have made any difference because they were seen by a social worker shortly before and no abuse was recognised. The parent's lack of provision of a suitable education was ignored. Social workers knew there were welfare issues and did nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'So is it your theory that some kind of monitoring of HE children would help in these types of cases? If so, why use these children as examples as none of them support your case?'

    I think you might be missing the point. All these cases are failures. This is how we know about them. We do not read headlines in the morning paper telling us that some child is no longer at risk as a result of prompt action by Social Services. I used the case of Kimberley Carlile to illustrate how the system worked. It certainly failed her, but has been a boon for many others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I think you might be missing the point. All these cases are failures. This is how we know about them."

    Well of course it works in some cases, but where are the HE failures? Surely you need to find a problem before you attempt to fix it? How do you know that other sources of information, present in all your examples, will not be sufficient? In order to save children they need information and powers to act. In all of the examples you gave they had both. You would need to provide examples where either information or power were absent and were the direct cause of their failure to save a child to be significant at all.

    Even then you would need to prove that your solution would not cause more harm than good. Is the possibility of saving one child's life every 20-30 years worth removing, say 100 children a year as a result of false-positives, from their families into the care system with all the harm this would do to the child and family? Very high proportions of children in care end up on drugs and have a shorter life span on average. You would need to compare the life years saved with the life years lost as a result of your planned changes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'Even then you would need to prove that your solution '

    Once again, I think that you might be missing the point here. this is not my 'solution' at all. It is how things currently work in the real world. Some people are concerned about the fact that home educated children do not receive the kind of routine oversight which those at school get. This might make them more at hazard. A lot of the imptetus which drove the Badman review came from this perception, rather than concerns about education. It is not that I am putting forward a wonderful scheme to prevent abuse. I am describing how things are and explaining why some professionals are worried.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'You would need to compare the life years saved with the life years lost as a result of your planned changes.'

    As I say above, I have no planned changes. I am talking about a system which provides a certain degree of protection to 99.99% of the children in this country. I am also pointing out that home educated children are not afforded any protection by this current system. I am not at all sure what, if anything, should be done about this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Once again, I think that you might be missing the point here. this is not my 'solution' at all."

    But they are changes you have argued in favour of so what difference does it make that someone else suggested it?

    "It is how things currently work in the real world."

    No. There is a hugh difference between teachers becoming aware of a problem with a child in a large group they spend time with, and an inspector sent out to examine a single child or family with the express direction to screen to abuse and neglect. That was what Badman recommended.

    It's like the difference between medical professionals keeping an eye out for problems during the course of their normal duties and the routine screening of all children for abuse and neglect by medical professionals. The former is what happens, the latter has been rejected after research because it risks causing more harm than good.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "As I say above, I have no planned changes. I am talking about a system which provides a certain degree of protection to 99.99% of the children in this country."

    Only if you assume that the problem would not have been spotted by other people and reported if a teacher had not reported it. In all the examples you gave, this was not the case. First find your problem, then think of ways to solve it safely. You haven't found a problem yet.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do enjoy these thought provoking posts. It is good to hear another perspective even if I dont agree with it.
    In this example I find it useful to get some insight into why LAs and governments might think there are reasons to be concerned about children who are HE. I dont think it is a good enough reason to monitor all of them 'just in case' but it helps to understand their side of things.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Simon wrote,
    "Only one of the terms of reference for Graham Badman's review of elective home education was specifically concerned with education. There is a huge amount of worry among those working for statutory agencies that home educated children are not getting the same amount of routine oversight as those at school. This is not a problem which, as you put it, I see with home education, but rather a driving force behind the desire to regulate it."

    So you've gone from claiming that Badman dismissed the idea of monitoring visits being used to check for evidence of abuse, and the monitoring was only concerned with education provision to claiming the opposite in 6 days. Is this a sign you've learnt something, or an example of you twisting things around to suit your current argument?

    Simon wrote,
    "'But one of the main reasons advanced for annual monitoring visits was to check for evidence of child abuse or neglect. '
    This idea was dismissed by Graham badman in his report. He said;"
    and,
    "Schedule 1 of the Children Schools and Families Bill was drawn up on purely educational terms; child abuse did not enter into it at all. "

    and,
    "'One of the justifications listed for revocation of registration is if it would be harmful to the child's welfare for the child to continue to be home educated.'

    Also nothing to do with child abuse. Unless one assumes that home education could exacerbate the effects of abuse. "

    and,
    "'what do you think they mean by 'welfare'?'

    I would guess that this refers to children, for example, whose parents might be suffering from mental health problems and are very isolated, seeing few people but the parents. In such cases, even thought there is no question of abuse or neglect, it might be in the child's best interests to attend school. "

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'So you've gone from claiming that Badman dismissed the idea of monitoring visits being used to check for evidence of abuse, and the monitoring was only concerned with education provision to claiming the opposite in 6 days.'

    Absolutely at a loss to know how you have worked this out! I said above:

    ' Only one of the terms of reference for Graham Badman's review of elective home education was specifically concerned with education. There is a huge amount of worry among those working for statutory agencies that home educated children are not getting the same amount of routine oversight as those at school. '

    This is of course true. I am not at all sure thought what we should be doint about it. last week I said:

    ''But one of the main reasons advanced for annual monitoring visits was to check for evidence of child abuse or neglect. '
    This idea was dismissed by Graham badman in his report. He said'

    This is also true. Badman found no evidence for the things mentioned in the terms of reference such as forced amrriage. The point at which I am driving is that some people in statutory agencies are concerned and that school children are regularly monitored if they appear vulnerable. I can't see where you think that I have changed my view? If you would adopt a slightly less adversarial approach, you might see that I am examining how things work at the moment and wondering if there is a way of satisfying both parents and professionals.

    ReplyDelete
  16. old webb says-I am also pointing out that home educated children are not afforded any protection by this current system.

    home educated chilren have plenty of protection doctors neighbours gran parents/family and friends and busy body's many people watch out for children after school clubs do as well!

    ReplyDelete
  17. ' I dont think it is a good enough reason to monitor all of them 'just in case' but it helps to understand their side of things.'

    fair point, C. By the way, I was very interested to read the stuff about your background on an earlier thread. I think that this is the first time that I have heard of successive generations of home educators in this way, although I dare say there are others.

    ReplyDelete
  18. old webb also says-you might see that I am examining how things work at the moment and wondering if there is a way of satisfying both parents and professionals.

    Your NEVER satisfy parents and professinal as we knew that a number of professinal(most of them are not professinal) do not like parents and do not like home education.

    who cares about satisfying nosy parkers?(professinals) We dont!

    ReplyDelete
  19. ' First find your problem, then think of ways to solve it safely. You haven't found a problem yet.'

    Not altogether sure what you mean by this. Children are screened for hearing problems when they start school. This catches a lot of children whose slight hearing loss might otherwise cause them problems, perhaps with higher frequencies of human speech. Home educated children do not have these routine tests and so are at increased risk of this kind of hearing difficulty remaining undetected. The same applies to other things. I do not say that this is a problem, simply that it happens. A child who has reading difficulties is more likely to have those difficulties spotted at school than at home. There are many examples of this sort of thing. I am just pointing out why some teachers and other education professionals are concerned. I do not know what the answer is, or if anything does actually need to be done. I suspect that something does need to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Old webb says-I do not know what the answer is, or if anything does actually need to be done. I suspect that something does need to be done.

    you wanted the old children bill to be passed made into law so that is not true that you do not know what needs to be done?

    luckly the children bill with the bits about home education where droped

    ReplyDelete
  21. "''But one of the main reasons advanced for annual monitoring visits was to check for evidence of child abuse or neglect. '
    This idea was dismissed by Graham badman in his report. He said'

    This is also true. Badman found no evidence for the things mentioned in the terms of reference such as forced amrriage. "

    Why are you talking about forced marriage when the original comment was about abuse and neglect? One of the terms of reference was:

    "The extent to which claims of home education could be used as a ‘cover’ for child abuse such as neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude and advise on measures to prevent this;"


    "I am examining how things work at the moment and wondering if there is a way of satisfying both parents and professionals. "

    That would require evidence of need and evidence that the solution would not cause more harm than good. Independent research.

    "' First find your problem, then think of ways to solve it safely. You haven't found a problem yet.'

    Not altogether sure what you mean by this. Children are screened for hearing problems when they start school."

    Because its known that a reasonable percentage will have hearing problems and a false-positive is unlikely to cause lasting harm. Once a certain percentage of risk is passed it is worth screening. We would need evidence that a high enough proportion of HE children are at risk of harm for this comparison to hold up.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I do not know what the answer is, or if anything does actually need to be done. I suspect that something does need to be done. "

    So does this mean you have evidence of a need for monitoring? Can you point me to it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'So does this mean you have evidence of a need for monitoring? Can you point me to it?'

    If you are asking whether if the initial medical examination of children starting school were to be abolished, the result would be more undetected hearing problems and so on; then the answer is yes. Similarly, if you are asking if the monitoring system currently operating in schools whereby children thought to be at risk are watched and observations passed on to the relevant bodies has saved children from abusive situations; again, the answer is yes. On the other hand, if you are asking whether a monitoring system of the same sort for home educated children would detect or deter abuse, then the answer if that nobody knows.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Similarly, if you are asking if the monitoring system currently operating in schools whereby children thought to be at risk are watched and observations passed on to the relevant bodies has saved children from abusive situations; again, the answer is yes."

    Can you provide evidence of this? The evidence would have to show that the abuse would not have been reported by anyone else. None of your examples show this as all were reported by people outside the education system.

    "On the other hand, if you are asking whether a monitoring system of the same sort for home educated children would detect or deter abuse, then the answer if that nobody knows."

    Yet we have plenty of evidence that routine screening of low risk populations for abuse will result in huge numbers of false-positives which have the potential to do great harm. The 'system' in schools is not at all comparable to an annual visit to the home specifically looking for evidence of abuse and neglect. Shouldn't we have a bit more evidence than, 'nobody knows', before taking such a risk?

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'Can you provide evidence of this? '


    http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/12-03pm-Mummy-bit-court-hears/article-289418-detail/article.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. I meant research evidence, this is anecdotal.

    *If* the only crime was a single bite I also think it's an example of the state over reacting. I suspect being taken into care was far more harmful to the children than being bitten. Funnily enough, during a recent conversation with my parents, they mentioned that they had bitten us to teach us not to bite. She was advised to do this by her health visitor. I think, historically, it was quite common so may have been done to the mother when she was a child. Sometimes it's difficult to avoid repeating our childhood in times of stress despite our best intentions! Admittedly I suspect my Mum didn't bite as hard as this mother did, but still, I know which outcome I would have preferred and it wouldn't have been being taken into care and my mother sent to prison! Far better to help the parent with advice, parenting classes and support. If anything this is an example of the harm that may befall families if routine monitoring for abuse begins.

    Interesting follow up article, though I'd like to know if the children are still in care.

    http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Cheltenham-mum-released-jail-biting-son/article-437408-detail/article.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. ' If anything this is an example of the harm that may befall families if routine monitoring for abuse begins.'

    This makes any comment by me superfluous and illustrates perfectly why social workers are alarmed. Your parents bit you and so you see no problem with biting children. Some adults were beaten as children and then beat their own kids. Other people have parents who sexually abused them and see no problem with abusing their own children. This is precisely why it is helpful to have an objective input in family life, together with advice about what constitutes normal childrearing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 'I remember that you went to the trouble of going out with your baby when you knew the health visitor was calling. Presumably you think it's just other people who need objective input in family life.'

    A fair point! Actually, I was running playgroups and support groups for mothers who were struggling to cope with their small children at that time and took my baby with me to work. The result was that she was seen by any number of Health Visitors, social workers, psychologists, doctors and so on every week. It did cause the odd raised eyebrow at case conferences, but I doubt any baby in Britain was seen and examined informally by more professionals than was my daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Very strange. Blogger is now deleting comments that have been replied to! A new development. Usually the comment disappears immediately. The following is the post that Simon replied to above at 3:23. Hopefully.

    Simon wrote,
    "This makes any comment by me superfluous and illustrates perfectly why social workers are alarmed. Your parents bit you and so you see no problem with biting children."

    Leaping to the worst possible interpretation of what I said without taking into account other things I said at the same time. Really bad habit of yours, Simon. I also said that she needed help, advice, parenting classes and support, so it's obvious I see biting children as a problem, I just disagree with their solution.

    Simon wrote,
    "This is precisely why it is helpful to have an objective input in family life, together with advice about what constitutes normal childrearing."

    I agree that this should be the case if there is a problem, which is why I suggest that this be provided for the mother as an alternative to the more extreme measures of removal of the child and prison. Obviously the solution should be different if sexual abuse or more serious harm is involved. However, some people needing help does not justify spending huge amounts of money on providing this input to all families. I know a mother who has asked for parenting support and help because she is struggling to cope. She has not been given it. If they cannot afford to provide help to those who know they need it, how do you justify spending money on this support for everyone? Far better to provide good support where it's needed than sprinkle poor 'support' at random.

    I remember that you went to the trouble of going out with your baby when you knew the health visitor was calling. Presumably you think it's just other people who need objective input in family life.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I doubt any baby in Britain was seen and examined informally by more professionals than was my daughter."

    There's a big difference between this and the proposed annual (or more frequent) home visit specifically looking for evidence for abuse and neglect. They are not comparable. Again it's the difference between medical professionals keeping an eye out for problems during the course of their normal duties and the routine screening of all children for abuse and neglect by medical professionals. The former is what happens, the latter has been rejected after research suggested it would cause more harm than good.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It seems highly unprofessional to take a baby to a case conference when attention should surely be on the case being discussed, not the cute baby in the corner.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It seems highly unprofessional to take a baby to a case conference when attention should surely be on the case being discussed, not the cute baby in the corner.'

    You speak truly, Anonymous; this was a point of view which others shared. Still, it acted as great icebreaker!

    '

    ReplyDelete