I have noticed many times over the last year or two how eager some home educating parents are to distance themselves from other home educators who say or do things which might give a bad impression of home education. This happened to me actually. Because my views were disagreeable to some home educators, it was claimed that I was not really a home educator at all, but a home schooler! More seriously, the claim is frequently made that Khyra Ishaq's mother, Angela Gordon, was not really a home educator. The grounds for making this assertion are that she failed to comply with Regulation 8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. I doubt that many ordinary parents are aware of this regulation and it is widely ignored anyway. Technically, the only way to remove a child's name from a school's register is to deliver written notification to the proprietor. Families moving house seldom bother to do this; they just tell the school that their kids will not be attending there from next term. Because Angela Gordon was not familiar with Regulation 8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration((England) Regulations 2006, it meant that when she told her child's school verbally that she was removing her daughter, the child remained registered at the school. Theoretically, therefore, Khyra Ishaq continued to be a a pupil at the school and was still on the roll at the time of her death.
This is of course absurd. Angela Gordon was a most unpleasant and deluded woman, but there is no doubt that she did intend to teach her children at home. She bought workbooks and made at least some attempt to start teaching them. The job quickly proved beyond her, but she showed every sign of meaning what she said about educating them at home. It seems rather cruel of other home educators to reject her on the grounds of her unfamiliarity with a minor regulation. Somebody commenting here a couple of days ago also denied that Eunice Spry was a home educator. In this case, the woman was registered with the local authority and received visits twice a year. It seems to me that whenever something goes wrong with home education or when a home educator, as in my case, says things which parents don't like to here, the tendency is to deny that that person is a 'real' home educator at all. This is a dangerous notion! If we were all to adopt that attitude, then each of us would be able to select groups of other parents and deny that they were 'really' home educators; because they had different views to us or did things differently. There are bound to be a few rotten apples in any large group, whether it is home educators or accountants, teachers or travellers. These people do not discredit the group to which they belong, they are simply a universal human phenomenon. There are good people and bad in any class or group.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Old worn our Webb-The grounds for making this assertion are that she failed to comply with Regulation 8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. I doubt that many ordinary parents are aware of this regulation and it is widely ignored anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf you do not comply with this the school can not take your child name off the register nor can the LA take your name off the register it goes down as missing school days evidence would be used in court against you and it would be no good saying to a court i did not know you had to do this! or i thought you could just ignore it! one of the reason for this regulation is so that it flags up those parents who children just stop going to school this then allows the LA and EWS to look into the matter which was done with Angela Gordon but dispite being told of child stealing food and the real concern the school had over this children failed to really do anything to save this child!
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"This is of course absurd. Angela Gordon was a most unpleasant and deluded woman, but there is no doubt that she did intend to teach her children at home. She bought workbooks and made at least some attempt to start teaching them. The job quickly proved beyond her, but she showed every sign of meaning what she said about educating them at home."
I agree that both of these women were home educators. However, in one case it should have been clear that a suitable education was not being provided and that further welfare visits were needed by Social Services (not an education inspector), and in the other, home visits did nothing to protect the children.
Angela Gordon had a home visit by two EWOs who 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. They felt that there was not sufficient evidence of a suitable education so the mother agreed to send further information in writing. However, the LA later agreed in writing that Gordon was providing a suitable education despite not receiving the promised further evidence in writing and a failed attempt at a repeat visit.
You usually use Khyra's case as evidence of the need for registration and visits but it does not support this view. All of these children, both the Ishaq and Spry children, could have been helped under existing laws if they had been used correctly by LA staff.
The school had real conerns about this child and reports had been made of Khyra looking in dustbins for food! Why did no one help this poor child? EWS social service did nothing Webb may have been to busy ticking boxes! you had your visit and their still failed to spot the abuse right under the nose of the very people who should have helped save this child! I would suggest that these EWS soical service could have a million home visits and still fail spot the abuse! if a child is looking in dustbins for food then something is very very wrong!
ReplyDeleteboth the Ishaq and Spry children, could have been helped under existing laws if they had been used correctly by LA staff
ReplyDeleteWhich certainly will not work when people, like Angela Gordon, can just hold up the race card to repel unwanted attention. What LA wants to be accused of racial discrimination and suffer the ramifications.
It's not a race problem, the same issue of social worker failures to cope with aggressive, manipulative parents were noted in the Baby Peter case too.
ReplyDeleteThe Ishaq case was exacerbated by Gordon and Abuhamza's belief that the child was possessed by a mythological djinn. It is as though we are returning to 5th century England.
ReplyDeleteAnd your point is?
ReplyDelete