Saturday, 2 March 2013
In what sense were Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq not being home educated?
I asked yesterday whether readers thought that members of minority cultures in this country should be assumed, unless there is firm evidence to the contrary, to be providing a suitable, full-time education for the children in their care. I rather think that the general feeling is that we should make this assumption. I was asked;
‘What is it that you believe qualifies you to sit in judgement on an individuals belief and/or lifestyle choices?’
This is all very interesting. Readers will remember the fury that was caused during the Badman enquiry, when it was suggested that Victoria Climbie had been home educated. The unanimous verdict among many of the more vociferous home educating parents was that she had most certainly not been home educated. I don’t think that it is me who is sitting in judgement here upon ‘an individual’s beliefs and/ or lifestyle choices’! The same judgement was made against the mother of Khyra Ishaq; that the child had not really been home educated at all. Several people lately have expressed irritation about the fact that looking at the Department for Education’s pages on elective home education will lead you to an account of Khyra Ishaq’s experiences. Outrageous! What does this cases have to do with home education?.
This then was the question that I was recently asked by somebody who works in the field. We are invited to believe that an adequate education may be provided for a child, simply by the parents or carers pursuing their normal lifestyle and letting the child follow her own interests. Some call this autonomous education or unschooling. These types though seem to have quite a different set of rules for members of other cultures. It was specifically alleged by home educators that in the case of Victoria Climbie, that there was no ‘evidence’ of home education; that is to say books, teaching and so on. Why should there have been? If the absence of such things in the lives of white, middle class home educators is unremarkable, why should we expect to see such evidence in the case of a working class, black carer? In other words, in what sense was Victoria Climbie not being home educated by her aunt? On what grounds did other home educating parents make this judgement upon her? True, once she picked up with an unsuitable boyfriend, things very quickly went wrong for the child; but what about the months before that happened? Why is it asserted so warmly that this child was not being home educated during that period?
In the case of Khyra Ishaq, the judgement that she was not being home educated seems even harsher when made by other home educating parents against her mother. In this case, the child’s mother had withdrawn her from school after announcing that she was to be educated at home. She had purchased various workbooks, paper, pens and other educational material and showed every sign of being prepared to teach the child at home. Ah yes, cry home educators gleefully, but the mother had not complied with Regulation 8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England)Regulations 2006, which state clearly that such notice of the intention to home educate must be given in writing. Because Khyra Ishaq’s mother neglected this minor regulation, she was not technically a home educator. Imagine if a parent contacted the EO or HE-UK lists and asked about this. Does anybody really think that parents there would disown her and tell her that she was not a real home educator, simply because of her ignorance of those regulations?
Here is the main point. Many home educators in this country seem on the one hand to insist that their children are being furnished with a perfectly good education just by being with their parents or carers and taking part in ordinary, everyday activities. In the case of the two black carers mentioned above though, the suggestion is made that such a lifestyle does not and could not constitute home education at all. This is puzzling and I was unable to explain why this should be to the local authority officer with whom I was discussing this matter. Should there be stricter rules for defining education for black carers or members of minority communities? If not, why is there such aggressive insistence that Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq were not being home educated? I am sure that readers will be able to explain this strange situation in a clear and satisfactory fashion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For me, the question would be 'is the child learning?' As long as the answer to that is 'yes' then they are being home educated.
ReplyDeleteVictoria Climbie was not in school. That is not the same as someone declaring that they are home educating. At no stage, as far as I am aware, did her Aunt ever claim to be home educating her.
And in both cases, the problems were KNOWN about and professionals failed to act. That, to me, is a far more important discussion than whether a child was or was not being educated at home or anywhere else.
There were powers that could have been used to save those two girls. They weren't used. Those girls are dead.No matter how many lessons are learned, they will never grow up, and no one knows what's been lost because they didn't get that chance.
And I must be more of a liberal than I'd realised, because I find seeing them used as a way of point scoring extremely distasteful.
Anne
'Victoria Climbie was not in school. That is not the same as someone declaring that they are home educating. At no stage, as far as I am aware, did her Aunt ever claim to be home educating her. '
ReplyDeleteMy own younger daughter was not in school. I did not claim to anybody that I was home educating her. You seem to be saying that this is what establishes that home education is taking place; that the carer makes a public declaration. Bad news for all those parents currently 'under the radar'; we must assume that their children are probably not being home educated!
'because I find seeing them used as a way of point scoring extremely distasteful.'
I take your point Anne, but this is a serious matter. Attempts are being made to get more Gypsy and Roma children into school, on the grounds that they are clearly not being home educated; but are rather missing from education. Some home educators are complaining that this is terrible and that a judgement is being made about their education which is based mainly upon their culture. I am pointing out that precisely the same thing was done by home educating parents in the Climbie and Ishaq cases; that these were outsiders who could neatly be disowned. The person to whom I spoke made this point and I was unable to come up with a rebuttal. Is there a difference? I am genuinely puzzled by this question. Why are so many home educators so sure that Victoria Climbie was not being home educated? Should we apply the same reasoning to middle class, white families; that is to say that if there is no 'evidence' of education and the carer makes no public declaration, should we automatically assume that a child is not receiving a suitable education at home? You may find this distasteful Anne, but these are questions that are currently being asked about Gypsy and Roma children. If they may be asked about children of those backgrounds, then why not other children?
Possibly I didn't make myself clear enough. I think that home educating parents, if asked by the LA, 'are you home educating your child' would say 'yes.' No public declaration would be necessary.
DeleteDid anyone ever ask Victoria Climbie's Aunt how she was being educated? Again, you probably know more about it than I do, but my impression was that no one ever did.
As for Khyra, education and welfare are 2 different things. People reported that she'd been stealing food off bird tables. While she was at school, the teachers raised concerns. For whatever reason, those with the legal duty and powers to intervene did not do so. Her education (or not) had nothing to do with the fact that she was being starved to death.
What happened to Victoria and Khyra was shocking, worst of all because there were so many points at which it could have been stopped. I think we need as a society to talk about that a lot more than we are and for social services and charities like the NSPCC to look very seriously at how they are viewed by the general public, because until they are trusted and respected, people will not refer worries to them. What we do not need is for it to be assumed that if they had been in school they would be alive today.
Nor am I going to accept guilt, or any argument that if I am inspected once a year (or 4 times, which is what my council thinks necessary) that it will save a child's life. It won't. It'll just tie up resources and encourage a false feeling of 'oh, we've dealt with the 'at risk' ones.'
Home educated children AREN'T at a higher risk of abuse than other children. I think it's children under 1 who are at the highest risk, so shouldn't we be inspecting those regularly? Or should we be concentrating on people who need help, and making sure they are reached and that children who are removed from their parents don't end up in a worse situation than the one they left?
Anne
Hear, hear! Agree completely with Anne's comment.
DeleteI think not being home educated was the very least of those two girls' problems, don't you? I hope you're not conflating education with welfare again.
ReplyDelete'I think not being home educated was the very least of those two girls' problems, don't you? '
ReplyDeleteBy which I take it that you are saying that these girls were not being home educated? Could you tell us your grounds for supposing this to be the case?
I don't suppose anything, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. In fact, their murderers were to blame for their deaths. Not home education, education officers, the law or welfare officers. Their murderers. Sadly, evil is impossible to stamp out completely and hounding autonomous home educators because of those girls' deaths is in my view adding to the problem, not helping it.
ReplyDelete'their murderers were to blame for their deaths'
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely and I do not think that their deaths were connected to home education. I am asking though why so many home educators seem so sure that these children were not being home educated. Is the fact that no systematic instruction appears to be taking place sufficient in itself to lead one to believe that an education is not taking place? If not, why is the statement so regularly trotted out that Victoria Climbie was not being home educated?
You are missing the point. Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, the law says that officers must assume a suitable education is taking place. Whether it is or not is the legal responsibility of the parent and nobody else. Unless there is reason to believe otherwise. The child's welfare does not come into it. That's a different department and a different section of the law.
ReplyDelete'You are missing the point. Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, the law says that officers must assume a suitable education is taking place. Whether it is or not is the legal responsibility of the parent and nobody else. Unless there is reason to believe otherwise. The child's welfare does not come into it. That's a different department and a different section of the law.'
ReplyDeleteI don't think that I am missing the point; indeed, the point that you make here is the very one that I am also trying to establish. You are saying, I think, that both Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq were home educated, as far as we know, and that those home education organisations and individuals who claim that they were not in fact home educated, are wrong. Does this sum up your views?
My views are that it is none of my business whether they were or not. I was not their parent.
ReplyDelete"I asked yesterday whether readers thought that members of minority cultures in this country should be assumed, unless there is firm evidence to the contrary, to be providing a suitable, full-time education for the children in their care."
ReplyDeleteThis is known as the presumption of innocence. An important principle protecting private citizens from arbitrary state intervention in their lives and interference with their person and property. There is an important reason for this presumption and that is that it is impossible to prove a negative. If the police beat down your door at 3am and demanded you prove you did not abuse your daughter, slash your neighbour's tyres, steal the bottle of whiskey in your sideboard or sell the cocaine to your cousin you would not be able to do so. Not because you did these things but because innocence cannot be proven, only guilt can be proven. If you reverse the burden of proof then you are well on the way to a fascistic police state. As to your suggestion that minority cultures should be treated differently to anyone else - I find that repugnant and racist.
'As to your suggestion that minority cultures should be treated differently to anyone else - I find that repugnant and racist.'
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more. You too seem to be saying that we should assume that both Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq were being home educated, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Tell me, does anybody reading this think that these two girls were not being home educated and if so, could we hear about the evidence supporting this belief?
I really am getting a bit confused now! Every home education organisation in the country went mad a few years ago at the suggestion that Victoria Climbie was being home educated. Here is the NSPCC apologising to Fiona Nicholson and the rest at Education Otherwise for suggesting that the child was being home educated:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.educationotherwise.net/attachments/article/151/NSPCC%2028%2004%2009%20Apology.pdf
Presumably then, both Education Otherwise and the NSPCC must have had grounds for thinking that this child was not being home educated. People commenting here today don't seem to know of any reason for assuming this; does anybody know anything about the matter?
"I really am getting a bit confused now!"
ReplyDeleteTry reading the above replies again very slowly and carefully, perhaps?
'"I really am getting a bit confused now!"
ReplyDeleteTry reading the above replies again very slowly and carefully, perhaps?'
I have now done so. The gist appears to be that if a child is not at school, then we should assume, as long there is no evidence to the contrary, that her parents or carers are providing her with a suitable education. This view is so at odds with what was being asserted by every home education organisation only four years ago, that I am unable to work out what has changed.
Four years ago, Education Otherwise, Action on Home Education, Home Education UK, Home Ed Biz and everybody else were saying that Victoria Climbie was obviously not being home educated because there was no appearance of systematic instruction; no teaching, no claims of home education. Now, the position is that if a child is in this situation, we should simply take it for granted that an education is being provided. I am trying to find out when and why such a radical change in perspective occurred among home educators in this country.
Tell me, do you think that Victoria Climbie was being home educated?
My thoughts on this are in the above replies. I am not saying it again!
ReplyDeleteIf a child's name is on a school register the child is not being home educated. Victoria Climbe was registered in school. How can you claim she was home educated?
ReplyDelete' Victoria Climbe was registered in school. How can you claim she was home educated?'
ReplyDeleteVictoria Climbie was not registered at any school in this country.
In what sense are you implying that she WAS being home educated? In the sense that she was not registered at a school?
ReplyDelete'In what sense are you implying that she WAS being home educated? In the sense that she was not registered at a school?'
ReplyDeleteI am open minded about this. Some of those commenting here seem to have the view that if a child is not at school, then in the absence of any other information, we should assume that the parents or carers are providing a suitable education. Is that not what you think? Do you think that we should expect to see evidence to prove that home education is taking place?
Because of a court case I was recently involved in, I now believe that some evidence would be a good idea.
DeleteI don't think you ARE open minded though. I think you have a personal view and are trying to trick people.
The trouble is, even if some evidence might be a good idea, how would you stop it at that? It's a short bureaucratic step from 'some evidence' to a regular Ofsted inspection.
DeleteThe way it always was stopped, I suppose, before most people stopped having visits about 10-15 years ago.
DeleteWhich is presumably why the law is framed in the negative 'not receiving suitable education' terms. So if there are reasons to think this might be the case, information is requested but otherwise, not.
DeleteBut the child in the court case was 'hidden' at home with a severely mentally ill mother. No one knew for years that he even existed, let alone was being home educated.There was no reason to suspect that HE was not suitable, because no one was aware of his existence.
DeleteAnd so again, the absence of a suitable education was the least of his problems. This was surely a welfare, not an education issue? Or do you think education officers should be quasi-welfare officers also? Personally I think that puts far too much unfair onus on them.
Delete"No one knew for years that he even existed, let alone was being home educated."
DeleteSo because of this case you think asking for some evidence would be a good thing. But if they didn't know he existed, they wouldn't have known to ask for evidence, would they? And if they had known about him, they can already ask for information about his education under current legislation.
'So because of this case you think asking for some evidence would be a good thing. But if they didn't know he existed, they wouldn't have known to ask for evidence, would they?'
DeleteI guess you are not a home educator and so therefore do not know that there is no current duty to register a child as being home educated.
If there had been a duty to register, the LA would have known about him and made enquiries. He then wouldn't have been imprisioned with a woman with untreated paranoid schizophrenia for 3 years, before a neighbour finally reported the situation to the LA.
Of course, there could be other ways to make sure children aren't hidden in the way this poor child was. But claiming to be HE'ing shouldn't be such an easy way to hide a child.
It's a lot harder to hide paranoid schizophrenia than a child you are claiming to home educate. I'm amazed they lasted in this state for three years when there were, as you say, neighbours.
DeleteNot all neighbours are nosy and interfering.
DeleteBecause there was no serious case review, as I think this only happens with child deaths, not other serious, long term consequences for a child, this case is not in the public domain.
It makes me wonder whether it is the sort of thing which can and has happened more often than we realise. This is why I have changed my views about registration for HE and the provision of some sort of evidence. Up until I observed this court case, I would not have been for such things.
So what's your proposed solution?
DeleteI knew a family in which the mother had untreated paranoid schizophrenia - it usually is untreated before it has reached crisis point at which stage the person is often sectioned for hospital care, before treatment can begin. In the family I knew, the children all went to school but still had to deal with their mother, unprotected and unrescued, on their return home. Until the illness reached crisis point and became undeniably public, nobody knew.
So what do you propose as a workable solution to this problem, in the case of home education? Since you seem to think it should be resolved in advance of the illness reaching crisis point.
'So what's your proposed solution? '
DeleteAs I said earlier, there is more than one potential solution going forward. However, looking back at this particular case, I think that registration, and the LA requesting information, may well have brought the mother's problems to the fore much earlier. Becoming 'undeniably public' is easier when the child or mother are actually out in public. In this case, they weren't.
'you seem to think it should be resolved in advance of the illness reaching crisis point'
This depends on how you define 'crisis'. This child's life was one long crisis. I can't really say more about this specific case without making it possibly identifiable which I am not going to do.
“
DeleteIf there had been a duty to register, the LA would have known about him and made enquiries. He then wouldn't have been imprisioned with a woman with untreated paranoid schizophrenia for 3 years, before a neighbour finally reported the situation to the LA.”
So an untreated paranoid schizophrenic would have trotted along quite happily to register her child with the LA?
“Because there was no serious case review, as I think this only happens with child deaths, not other serious, long term consequences for a child, this case is not in the public domain.”
Serious case reviews can be carried out if a child suffers serious harm.
“This is why I have changed my views about registration for HE and the provision of some sort of evidence.”
How would they ensure that children who are at risk of harm are actually registered, since the parent's of children at most risk seem the least likely to pay attention to the law and register their children.
'So an untreated paranoid schizophrenic would have trotted along quite happily to register her child with the LA?'
DeleteIn whose imagined system of registration would it be necessary for anyone to 'trot' somewhere? It could easily be done automatically when a child is not registered for school.
So basically you would introduce a children's database and make it a legal requirement for parents to inform the state when they move? Otherwise, how would they find people who move house after their baby is born? But this still requires parents to update the state, so I'm still not sure how you think someone who wants to hide will choose to keep the state updated. Maybe they could consider chipping babies at birth? But then, babies can be born without midwives, so even that wouldn't be foolproof.
Delete'Maybe they could consider chipping babies at birth?'
DeleteSigh. Yes, that's my solution. Or maybe we could just put a long lead on dog collars around their necks and attach the lead to the LA office.
For goodness' sake, calm down. Stop freaking out and posting in such an aggressive way. No wonder Simon thinks we're all nuts.
Interjecting to say that I think there are at least three people posting on this mini thread, not just two. It's not one person doing all the posting "in an aggressive way". And Simon probably thinks everyone is nuts who doesn't think, speak or write exactly like Simon does.
Delete"For goodness' sake, calm down. Stop freaking out and posting in such an aggressive way."
DeleteSo now sarcasm is aggression? Calm down yourself ;-)
"So now sarcasm is aggression? Calm down yourself ;-)"
DeleteActually, on second thoughts after checking the definition of sarcasm that's not how I intended it - that would be agressive :-o. I intended it in a satirical or ironic way. I obviously didn't think you would be in favour of chipping babies, but was trying to figure out how all children could be registered without relying on their carers. And chipping wouldn't even work unless they could be tracked by GPS!
'I think you have a personal view and are trying to trick people.'
ReplyDeleteI suppose that this depends upon what you mean by a 'trick'. I know no more about this case than anybody else. All I am doing here is asking questions and then exhibiting the logical conclusions which stem from the answers to those questions. If this is trickery, then yes; I plead guilty!
When you have a view and you say you don't, it's not quite honest, is it?
Delete' before most people stopped having visits about 10-15 years ago.'
ReplyDeleteMost home educating parents do not have visits? What makes you think that?
'When you have a view and you say you don't, it's not quite honest, is it?'
You mean, I suppose, that if you are in a group of people who all seem to like fish and chips, then it is dishonest not to reveal that this meal is not a particular favorite of yours? I am not sure that I would describe that as not being honest.
Most I knew, who were having visits, stopped.
DeleteDid you find the opposite? Did most people you knew, who were not having visits, suddenly start having them?
Almost at the point of giving up this conversation...
That's not the correct comparison. It's if they asked you whether you liked fish and chips and you said you 'had no view' whilst at the same time asking them questions about their fish and chips...sort of strange behaviour...
DeleteVictoria's aunt never claimed that they were home educating, so why would anyone assume they were?
ReplyDeleteKhyra's home education was inspected. The inspector decided that more evidence was needed to enable him to conclude that there was not a failure to provide a suitable education (there was only one or two books in the home and no evidence of resources or information on activities, etc). The mother agreed to send more information but never did. For some reason strange the inspector then changed his mind and agreed that a suitable education was being provided. He failed to gain the information he was entitled to ask for.
The LA can ask for information. They can make informal enquiries, and if they do not receive evidence sufficient to convince them that there is not a failure to provide a suitable education, they can take the first step towards issuing an SAO. This requires the parents to provide sufficient evidence to convince the LA that they are providing a suitable education. I'm not sure why people are saying that the state cannot ask the parent for evidence of provision. They can.
For some *reason strange*
DeleteFor some strange reason
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"If not, why is there such aggressive insistence that Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq were not being home educated?"
Victoria Climbie's family never claimed to be home educating, she was just not registered at a school.
Khyra Ishaq was home educating. The failure of the mother to technically deregister correctly doesn't really cut it as a get out clause for those who seem to want to claim that she wasn't home educated. But as has been said above, they were inspected and the inspector failed to make common sense follow up enquiries, mainly because his case load was far too high.
If the school teachers were still marking her presence or absence on the register then she wasn't home educated in the legal sense and she was truant. If the school removed her name from the school roll then she was being educated other than at school. There is a difference legally.
DeleteIt's the same as flexischooling not being the same as home education despite there is a portion of the education carried out off school grounds and presumably at home. Many pedantic home educators will always state that fact and not allow flexischoolers to say that they are home educators. They always point out that their child or children are on a school roll and therefore they cannot identify themselves as home educators.
*Sigh* I just remembered flexischooling is no longer allowed, scrub that last bit.
When I said,
Delete" If the school removed her name from the school roll then she was being educated other than at school. There is a difference legally."
I meant to point out that if she is not on the school roll her mother can't be fined for truancy if she is not attending school. I have to clarify that point before the pedants get their knickers in a knot.
If a child is on a school roll they have to attend and the parent has a legal obligation to ensure they do and if they don't they can be fined or prosecuted. I don't remember reading anywhere in Khyra's case anything about prosecution for truancy.
If the school removed her from the roll, plainly and simply she was in the legal category of not being educated at school and was clearly in the category of being home educated or educated other than at school.
Ah, so people who disagree with Alison are 'pedantic' now? Makes a change from 'paranoid'.
Delete"If the school removed her from the roll, plainly and simply she was in the legal category of not being educated at school and was clearly in the category of being home educated or educated other than at school."
ReplyDeleteIf I'm remembering correctly, her mother told the school that she was removing her child from school to home educate her. Technically she should have put this in writing, but the school treated her verbal request as a withdrawal and removed her name from the register. To claim that someone is not home educating in such a case is quibbling in my view. It's the sort of thing that an LA might use in order to prosecute for truancy, but I'm not sure it's something home educators should latch onto in order to claim a family are not home educators.
Agreeing that someone is a home educator is not the same as agreeing that they are providing a suitable education, and in this case, I don't believe they were. Certainly the inspector did not think so. As a result the mother agreed to provide more evidence, but even though the information was never provided, the inspector later decided that a suitable education was being provided, possible because his workload was so high.
"To claim that someone is not home educating in such a case is quibbling in my view."
ReplyDeleteThis is just what people I have spoken to offline have done - they have quibbled and decided she was truant rather than home educated based on the claim of verbal withdrawal rather than a written notice of deregistration.
I wonder how they would respond if a friend made the same mistake, and despite providing a suitable education, were prosecuted for truancy? I suspect they would claim that the lA were quibbling!
Delete