Stupendous hypocrisy, possibly combined with racism, on the part of Education Otherwise, Home Education UK, Action for Home Education and various other major home education organisations in the United Kingdom.

I was accused yesterday of not expressing my views openly and it is to be hoped that the title of this post clears that up. As I said a couple of days ago, I was talking to a local authority officer who was irritated about the suggestion being made by some home educators that there was something racist about the attempts to get more Gypsy and Roma children into school. She asked me if I could see the difference between this and the line that the big home education groups took about Victoria Climbie a few years ago. I could not and when I asked about the subject here, nobody could give a plain answer. Let me explain why this is at best dreadful hypocrisy and at worst out and out racism.

     Let us begin with what is practically an article of faith at the large home education support organisations and that is that just because a child is not at school, that does not mean that she is not receiving an education. I am sure that we have all read of the outraged cries from home educating parents when their children get mixed in with those who are ‘missing from education’. Surely, parents should be innocent until proven guilty? We ought to assume that parents and carers are providing children with a suitable education, unless there is definite evidence to the contrary. So far, so good; nothing controversial here, I fancy.

      With some groups in society; these assumptions are reversed.  As readers know, there was a huge fuss when organisations such as the NSPCC said that Victoria Climbie was home educated. Education Otherwise, Home Education UK and so on all went mad and asserted that this was not the case. Why were they so sure that this child was not being home educated? We will allow Mike Fortune-Wood of Home Education UK to explain. His is the standard explanation for believing that Victoria Climbie was not a home educated child. Be prepared though for a shock:

http://www.home-education.org.uk/articles/article-victoria-climbie.pdf


Have we all read it?  We know that the child was not receiving an education because;

‘the reason that Victoria was not attending school was that there was a failure to provide sufficient school places in her locality. Both the LEA and Social Services knew of her existence and her lack of education’

How do we know that she was lacking an education? Because of course, she was not at school! Incidentally, it is not true that she could not get a school place; her carer did not apply for one. Now we know that Mike Fortune-Wood, Education Otherwise and other groups are all in favour of children not attending school. We know that they believe passionately that the fact that a child is not in school does not mean that the child is lacking an education. Except perhaps, as in this case, when we are talking about working class, black foreigners.

     Perhaps I am wrong? Let us imagine  that we are talking now of a white, Welsh family. Does anybody think for a moment that Mike Fortune-Wood or Education Otherwise would say something along the lines of, ‘The local authority knew that this child was lacking an education because she was not at school’? Hard to believe, no? The only conclusion which I can reach is that either these organisations are guilty of massive hypocrisy about this or that they have one set of assumptions for white, British families and a completely different set for black foreigners. These two cases are not, of course, mutually exclusive!

     The suggestion was advanced here yesterday that Victoria Climbie was not being home educated because her main carer did not say that she was. What this means is that a woman whose first language is Senoufo and second language is French, should be judged because she might not be familiar with an English expression such as ‘home education’. Sounds as though those special rules for foreigners are coming into play again!

     There is a widely held assumption among many British home educators that a child, particularly a young child, should be able to receive an informal education at home. In some countries, schooling and formal education do not start until the age of seven or eight. Victoria Climbie was eight. The idea that a child of this age should be regarded as ‘lacking an education’,  as Mike Fortune-Wood puts it, simply because she is not at school is not one that I feel is commonly held among British home educators. Out of interest, how many readers feel that an eight year-old who is not at school should be treated as ‘lacking an education’? What, nobody?  Here’s an easier question then. How many of you think that the children of black foreigners should be assumed to be lacking an education if they are not at school? Ah, that’s better! Nice to see that so many of you are in agreement with Mike Fortune-Wood and Education Otherwise about this. 

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.

More about dead children, particularly black ones.

We looked yesterday at the emotive argument often used by home educators, that of the bullied child who had been educated at home and then forced back to school with tragic consequences. We found, as I had suspected, that nobody knows of a single case of a home educated child being forced back to school, let alone of one who subsequently suffered any harm as a result.
Of course, home educators are not the only ones who wheel out suffering children to bolster their arguments. During the select committee hearings in 2009, I was astounded to hear the present Children’s Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson, offer her reasons for supporting Schedule 1 of the CSF Bill. She said;

‘I would give you two words, and they are the first and second names of the child who died — Khyra Ishaq’

Khyra Ishaq was of course not only a sweet looking little girl, she was also dead and black; a winning combination if ever I heard one for a debate of this sort! Those who are worried about children being at home with their parents have a history of using dead kids in this way. Some of the legislation which many home educators feel is against their best interests was introduced in the wake of Victoria Climbie’s death. The reports about this actually had a picture of Victoria printed on the cover; perhaps the most flagrant example of using a dead kid to make one’s point when fighting or supporting new laws. Another photogenic, little black girl; how cool is that? And what's more, she's dead. Ha, let's see anybody disagree with the measures we propose now! Those who used Khyra Ishaq and Victoria Climbie in this way were clearly not familiar with the old adage that hard cases make bad law!

The problem is that both sides in these debates seem to be working from a blinkered perspective. Home educators claim quite correctly that some children are bullied so badly at school that they are driven to despair and suffer horribly. They go on to assert that home education offers a refuge to such children and removes them from the bullies. This is to ignore the fact that a huge amount of bullying also takes place in the home and that for some children, school can itself act as a refuge from bullying and abuse. Those opposed to home education are able to point to the occasional case of a child being educated at home who has suffered bullying, abuse or even died at the hands of her parents. They too ignore an important fact; that almost all child victims of domestic abuse and murder are registered pupils at schools.

Using dead children can be a pretty good knock-down debating point, whether you are discussing the merits of exporting powdered baby milk to less economically developed countries, mass vaccinations or the building of a nuclear power station. A debate about home education is the perfect excuse to bring in the dead children and blame your opponents for their deaths. As somebody pointed out yesterday, I have myself been guilty of this! On home educating lists, we often see mention of ’bullycide’ and the figure of sixteen deaths a year from bullying. I tried to track down the source of this figure a few years ago and could get no further than a registered charity which was making a good income from bullying and refused to tell me how they calculated this often mentioned statistic. The problem is that on both sides of the home educating debate are entrenched interests and people who are absolutely convinced that they are right. Neither side begins by examining the evidence and then seeing where it might lead and what the implications are. Instead, they start by believing either that home education is good and right or that it is dangerous and wrong. They then set out to gather evidence to support of this predetermined position. One can always find children who have been bullied at school and then been home educated. Similarly, one can always find other children who have been mistreated at home and who view school as a sanctuary. It is true that every so often a child who is being educated at home in this country is tortured or murdered, but then far more children at school suffer in this way.

It would be nice if a group of home educators and a bunch of social workers, teachers and other professionals could get together and examine all the available evidence in a neutral and dispassionate way, seeing where it might lead. They might possibly discover that they have more in common than either side has suspected. I don’t really expect this to happen any time soon; but it is an interesting idea! Of course, this is pretty much what was supposed to have happened at the select committee hearings in October 2009, but I have to say it did not really work that way. All parties were only interested in furthering their own special interests; not in discovering new truths.