With monotonous regularity, cases crop up in the USA of children who were not at school and are subsequently killed by their parents or carers. Many of these deaths have similar features. Apart from non-attendance at school, there is the fact that the children are usually black, often fostered or adopted and the adults looking after them are very frequently religious maniacs. A quick trawl through the internet will throw up any number of child homicides bearing two or more of these features.
There are signs that crimes of this sort are beginning to cross the Atlantic. Where America leads, we follow! The most famous such murder was of course that of Victoria Climbie. Here you had all the classic elements of such crimes. The child was black and not being sent to school, she was being informally fostered and, significantly, the woman caring for her, Marie-Therese Kourao, was devoutly religious. She always carried a Bible in the dock during her trial for murder. The Khyra Ishaq case had three of the warning signs; a child who was black and not attending school, combined with parents who were weirdly religious. Although it didn't ultimately end in death, the Eunice Spry affair fell into the same general pattern. There you had children who were not being sent to school and who were being fostered by a woman who was an enthusiastic member of a fringe religious group. In 2010, there was another death with three of these features; in addition to non-attendance at school and being a member of an ethnic minority, the mother in that case, Satpal Kauer Singh, was also pretty religious.
It strikes me that children who have more than two of the factors which I list above, might very well be at increased risk of abuse or death. Not going to school by itself may not be a risk factor, but combined with more than one of the things that I mention here, might be enough to indicate a child at hazard.
Showing posts with label Khyra Ishaq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Khyra Ishaq. Show all posts
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Home education in America
I am always interested to read about home education in the USA, because a lot of the time it is so very different from the scene in this country. Possibly because there are so many more home educated children in America, compared with here, the death rate is considerably higher; to the extent that most months one reads of home educated children killed by their parents, often after hideous abuse. Here are a couple of examples in the last few weeks:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/mother-murder-adopted-daughter-freeze
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9265022
One of the things one notices about many of the American cases is that they have strong similarities. The two cases above are good instances. The first common theme is that the kids being killed are either black or from other ethnic minorities. The second is the number who are not the natural children of those who murder them, but are instead fostered or adopted. The final point which one sees very frequently is that the killers claim to be Christians. I’m sure that readers will soon turn up any number of such cases with these features if they look around a bit.
The reason that I am interested in this phenomenon is that although there are few deaths of this sort in the United Kingdom, we most of us know that where America leads in trends; this country tends to follow. As I said, very few cases of the abuse or murder of home educated children occur in the United Kingdom, but of those which do, there are some faint indications that ethnic minority children are more likely to be the victims than are white children. There aren’t of course enough cases to draw any conclusion yet, but that may well be because there are perhaps forty or fifty times as many home educated children in America as there are here. I would be interested to know what would happen if the numbers of home educated children in the United Kingdom rose substantially.
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.
Thursday, 21 June 2012
More about why some local authorities are dubious about home education
I think that I made it clear a few days ago that I do not personally regard home education as a risk factor for the abuse of children. I tried yesterday to point out why some people, especially local authorities, do think of it in this way. It was I suppose inevitable that I should be thought to be agreeing with them!
Dreadful abuse of children is mercifully rare and no more common in home educating families than those who send their children to school. That being so and considering that over 99% of children go to school, it is obvious that the vast majority of abuse is against schooled children. So much is true. However, if you are abusing a child, it is easier to conceal it if you live in a caravan miles from the nearest neighbours and don’t send your children to school.
There was another way that the case of Lianne and Martin Smith raised suspicions among professionals. I mentioned yesterday that there has been a lot of criticism from home educating parents of Olaf Hindmarsh in Staffordshire. After his authority appointed a home educator whose children were being beaten and raped, as Head of Children’s Services in Staffordshire, it rather made many in the local authority a little dubious about home education in general. One can quite see why. Similar suspicions were being raised nationally at about the same time.
It is popularly supposed by many home educating parents that it was the Khyra Ishaq case which precipitated the Badman Enquiry. We must also look at what was going on in Education Otherwise at the same time. Lianne Smith was a regional advisor for EO. She also worked in child protection in Cumbria and was vociferous in arguing that parents were the only ones who should be responsible for the welfare of children. She was a high profile campaigner in her professional capacity against anything like compulsory visits or monitoring of home educated children. In retrospect, one can see why she felt so strongly about this. In the same year that she and her partner fled abroad with their children, Education Otherwise had a radical change of management committee. One of the new people, very prominent publicly for other reasons, ended up as Child Protection Officer for the organisation. She then turned out to have a partner with unfortunate proclivities. Despite this, she remained responsible for child protection, even though many in EO knew about the situation.
It began to look to some people as though the main home education support group in the country was harbouring a number of women with abusive and perverted partners and that this rather tainted EO. I do not say that it did; merely that that is how it appeared to some in both central and local government.
When we criticise local authorities, as I do myself, we must always try and bear in mind just why they are feeling this way about home education. Their fears are rooted not so much in prejudice, but in a perhaps exaggerated reaction to real events.
Dreadful abuse of children is mercifully rare and no more common in home educating families than those who send their children to school. That being so and considering that over 99% of children go to school, it is obvious that the vast majority of abuse is against schooled children. So much is true. However, if you are abusing a child, it is easier to conceal it if you live in a caravan miles from the nearest neighbours and don’t send your children to school.
There was another way that the case of Lianne and Martin Smith raised suspicions among professionals. I mentioned yesterday that there has been a lot of criticism from home educating parents of Olaf Hindmarsh in Staffordshire. After his authority appointed a home educator whose children were being beaten and raped, as Head of Children’s Services in Staffordshire, it rather made many in the local authority a little dubious about home education in general. One can quite see why. Similar suspicions were being raised nationally at about the same time.
It is popularly supposed by many home educating parents that it was the Khyra Ishaq case which precipitated the Badman Enquiry. We must also look at what was going on in Education Otherwise at the same time. Lianne Smith was a regional advisor for EO. She also worked in child protection in Cumbria and was vociferous in arguing that parents were the only ones who should be responsible for the welfare of children. She was a high profile campaigner in her professional capacity against anything like compulsory visits or monitoring of home educated children. In retrospect, one can see why she felt so strongly about this. In the same year that she and her partner fled abroad with their children, Education Otherwise had a radical change of management committee. One of the new people, very prominent publicly for other reasons, ended up as Child Protection Officer for the organisation. She then turned out to have a partner with unfortunate proclivities. Despite this, she remained responsible for child protection, even though many in EO knew about the situation.
It began to look to some people as though the main home education support group in the country was harbouring a number of women with abusive and perverted partners and that this rather tainted EO. I do not say that it did; merely that that is how it appeared to some in both central and local government.
When we criticise local authorities, as I do myself, we must always try and bear in mind just why they are feeling this way about home education. Their fears are rooted not so much in prejudice, but in a perhaps exaggerated reaction to real events.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Michael Gove and the home educators
I have always taken it rather for granted that Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, is a bit of a weasel. His appearance is distinctly musteline and he is after all a career politician. Still, he was the darling of the home educators during the run-up to the election. He valiantly denounced Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill and promised that the Tories would always stick by home educators. In January he said:
' I do not believe that the current system is perfect, but it is fundamentally important that we respect the rights of home educators first and that we ensure that any change to legislation is conducted in accordance with their wishes and interests.'
I found this pretty awful actually, emphasising the rights of parents without mentioning the rights of children, but there, I admit that I have a bee in my bonnet about children's rights. And why on earth should we , ' ensure that any change to legislation is conducted in accordance with their wishes and interests.'? Just because a group of people choose to follow some activity, does that mean that we must always automatically ensure that any legislation affecting them is in accordance with their wishes? Does that apply to fox hunters and vivisectionists as well? Or the owners of shotguns and pit-bull terriers? The logic of this escapes me utterly. In February he was promising that a Conservative government would repeal any legislation on home education which Labour passed. There was no doubt at all that Gove was the people's choice at least as far as the home education community was concerned.
In May Michael Gove became Secretary of State for Education. Home education was certainly safe in his hands. We could all breathe a sigh of relief and carry on educating or neglecting our children according to whichever particular strand of home education we favoured. Well at least for the next month or so, until Ofsted's report on Local authorities and home education was released in the middle of June. He suddenly seemed a good deal less sure about his opposition to new legislation about home education. The DfE announced that;
' We note Ofsted's findings and recommendations and ministers will shortly be considering if changes need to be made to the existing arrangements, given the strong views expressed by both home educators and local authorities.'
This was the first hint that Gove might be changing his position slightly. Note the words well, 'considering if changes need to be made'. Observe that crucial word 'if'. A mere five weeks later and the Serious Case Review on Khyra Ishaq's death was published. Michael Gove said;
' We respect the right of parents to educate their children at home and most do a very good job, some of them picking up the pieces where children have had problems at school. Clearly lessons need to be learned by the tragic events in this case, and I will consider the letter I expect to receive from Birmingham shortly, to see what changes need to be made to the existing arrangements and reply in due course.'
What's changed in this picture boys and girls? Can you spot the difference? Well in June he was, ' 'considering if changes need to be made'. Now in July he will, 'see what changes need to be made to the existing arrangements ' See what's changed? The 'if' has vanished. The statement earlier this week is saying in effect that changes need to be made. The only question is what those changes will be, not if they need to be made. In other words, the arrangements around home education are going to change.
You can't altogether blame Gove for this abrupt volte face. Everybody gets upset about dead little girls and the immediate impulse is to do something about it. Now that he is in government, the obvious thing to do is pass a law which will stop any parents in the future torturing their children to death in this way. This is the standard response to such tragedies. Victoria Climbie's death produced the Every Child Matters document, the Soham murders produced the Independent Safeguarding Authority and now Khyra Ishaq's legacy may also be a new law. This is what governments do when they can't think of anything else. I think that matters are now balanced on the edge of a knife and it would only take one more case involving the abuse of a home educated child to tip the balance. The rumour is that just such a high profile case is about to hit the courts in the next month or so.
That there has been a shift in public opinion on the subject of home education seems clear. When Alan Thomas had a piece in the Guardian a couple of days ago, the comments were interesting. Usually one would expect to hear a contrapuntal murmur from Guardian readers of 'creeping surveillance society...statisim.... liberty' and various similar expressions. In fact everybody apart from the home educators seemed to be in favour of a crackdown on home education. I found this surprising.
How would Gove go about changing the law without encountering the same sort of fuss that Ed Balls did with his CSF Bill. Perhaps by going about it piecemeal, instead of demanding everything at once. It would not, at least to begin with, need an entirely new bill. Little bits and pieces are constantly being tacked on to things like the 1996 Education Act, sometimes years later. I should think that something along the lines of The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006, Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1751 might meet the case to begin with. As I say, Gove would be unwise to start a row by doing everything at once. To begin with, a simple requirement for home educating parents to register with their local authority would probably have the support of almost everyone except home educators themselves. Then it would just be a matter of adding other provisions every six months or so. I don't know of course if this is what will happen, but I would not be at all surprised.
' I do not believe that the current system is perfect, but it is fundamentally important that we respect the rights of home educators first and that we ensure that any change to legislation is conducted in accordance with their wishes and interests.'
I found this pretty awful actually, emphasising the rights of parents without mentioning the rights of children, but there, I admit that I have a bee in my bonnet about children's rights. And why on earth should we , ' ensure that any change to legislation is conducted in accordance with their wishes and interests.'? Just because a group of people choose to follow some activity, does that mean that we must always automatically ensure that any legislation affecting them is in accordance with their wishes? Does that apply to fox hunters and vivisectionists as well? Or the owners of shotguns and pit-bull terriers? The logic of this escapes me utterly. In February he was promising that a Conservative government would repeal any legislation on home education which Labour passed. There was no doubt at all that Gove was the people's choice at least as far as the home education community was concerned.
In May Michael Gove became Secretary of State for Education. Home education was certainly safe in his hands. We could all breathe a sigh of relief and carry on educating or neglecting our children according to whichever particular strand of home education we favoured. Well at least for the next month or so, until Ofsted's report on Local authorities and home education was released in the middle of June. He suddenly seemed a good deal less sure about his opposition to new legislation about home education. The DfE announced that;
' We note Ofsted's findings and recommendations and ministers will shortly be considering if changes need to be made to the existing arrangements, given the strong views expressed by both home educators and local authorities.'
This was the first hint that Gove might be changing his position slightly. Note the words well, 'considering if changes need to be made'. Observe that crucial word 'if'. A mere five weeks later and the Serious Case Review on Khyra Ishaq's death was published. Michael Gove said;
' We respect the right of parents to educate their children at home and most do a very good job, some of them picking up the pieces where children have had problems at school. Clearly lessons need to be learned by the tragic events in this case, and I will consider the letter I expect to receive from Birmingham shortly, to see what changes need to be made to the existing arrangements and reply in due course.'
What's changed in this picture boys and girls? Can you spot the difference? Well in June he was, ' 'considering if changes need to be made'. Now in July he will, 'see what changes need to be made to the existing arrangements ' See what's changed? The 'if' has vanished. The statement earlier this week is saying in effect that changes need to be made. The only question is what those changes will be, not if they need to be made. In other words, the arrangements around home education are going to change.
You can't altogether blame Gove for this abrupt volte face. Everybody gets upset about dead little girls and the immediate impulse is to do something about it. Now that he is in government, the obvious thing to do is pass a law which will stop any parents in the future torturing their children to death in this way. This is the standard response to such tragedies. Victoria Climbie's death produced the Every Child Matters document, the Soham murders produced the Independent Safeguarding Authority and now Khyra Ishaq's legacy may also be a new law. This is what governments do when they can't think of anything else. I think that matters are now balanced on the edge of a knife and it would only take one more case involving the abuse of a home educated child to tip the balance. The rumour is that just such a high profile case is about to hit the courts in the next month or so.
That there has been a shift in public opinion on the subject of home education seems clear. When Alan Thomas had a piece in the Guardian a couple of days ago, the comments were interesting. Usually one would expect to hear a contrapuntal murmur from Guardian readers of 'creeping surveillance society...statisim.... liberty' and various similar expressions. In fact everybody apart from the home educators seemed to be in favour of a crackdown on home education. I found this surprising.
How would Gove go about changing the law without encountering the same sort of fuss that Ed Balls did with his CSF Bill. Perhaps by going about it piecemeal, instead of demanding everything at once. It would not, at least to begin with, need an entirely new bill. Little bits and pieces are constantly being tacked on to things like the 1996 Education Act, sometimes years later. I should think that something along the lines of The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006, Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1751 might meet the case to begin with. As I say, Gove would be unwise to start a row by doing everything at once. To begin with, a simple requirement for home educating parents to register with their local authority would probably have the support of almost everyone except home educators themselves. Then it would just be a matter of adding other provisions every six months or so. I don't know of course if this is what will happen, but I would not be at all surprised.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Why Khyra Ishaq would probably still be alive if the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009 had been in force while she was alive
There cannot be the least doubt that Angela Gordon, Khyra Ishaq's mother, was or at the very least intended to be, a genuine home educator. She withdrew her children from school because she honestly thought that she would be able to teach them herself at home. It was not some cunning ruse. This is plain when reading the transcript of the care proceedings. It is true that she did not send a letter notifying her intention, of which more later, but this is really a technicality; a minor breach of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006, which cover the deregistration of children from school to be home educated and contains the following provision. Regulation 8 (1)(d) says that a child's name is to be removed from a school's register if;
"He has ceased to attend the school and the proprietor has received written notification from the parent that the pupil is receiving education otherwise than at school ."
The local authority in Birmingham took her verbal assurance, rather than insist on a letter. This in turn led to the fatal confusion which cost Khyra Ishaq her life; a confusion which could not have arisen if there was one clear and unambiguous set of laws covering home education in this country.
The law surrounding home education in this country is, to put it bluntly, a mess; a confusing hodgepodge of Statute and Case law so jumbled up that even legal staff in many local authorities cannot work out which department is responsible for which aspect of home education.
The basic law relating to home education is to be found in Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act. This states that;
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable -
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."
To work out what is meant by "efficient" , "suitable" and "full-time", it is necessary to delve into various old Case law dating back a century or so; Bevan v Shears 1911, R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzeikei Hadass School Trust, 1985, Phillips versus Brown in 1980 and Harrison & Harrison versus Stephenson in 1981, together with half a dozen others. In addition to this, attention must be paid to the Education Act 1981 and also the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006. This isn't all. Local authorities have responsibilities beyond the purely educational as far as children living in their area are concerned. They have a duty to see that all the children in its area are safe, well and have access to the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters document. These outcomes, which are legally underpinned by the Children Act are to be healthy, to stay safe, to enjoy and achieve, to make a positive contribution and to achieve economic wellbeing. Local authorities have yet another duty which has brought them into conflict with some home educators. An amendment to the Education Act 1996, Section 436A, laid upon all local authorities a duty to identify children missing from education. Section 437 then goes on to specify that home educated children receiving a suitable education are not to be regarded as being missing from education. So local authorities must seek out children who are not receiving a suitable education, but at the same time must not bother home educating parents who are providing their children with a suitable education.
As things stand, deregistering a child from school is a very simple process which can be and sometime is undertaken on the spur of the moment. Under proposed new legislation, this would no longer be the case. Taking a child out of school would become a formal and pretty serious business. A plan of education would be needed, as well as visits and interviews; no nonsense about just saying something to a teacher and then refusing to engage with the local authority or not answering the door. The very fact that removing her children from school could be done in such a casual fashion was a precipitating factor in the circumstances which led ultimately to Khyra Ishaq's death.
The first thing to strike the impartial reader about this case is that the school seemed to be the only agency which comes out of the business with any credit. They spotted that things were badly wrong, visited the home themselves and did everything in their power to notify other concerned parties of their concerns. Reading the full account of last years court case of the care proceedings shows that the school were on the ball from the very beginning.
This fact has a number of implications when we are considering whether or not schools provide an extra layer of protection for vulnerable children. It is evident that in this case at least, that is precisely what the school did. The fact that Birmingham social services screwed up subsequently and the child became misplaced between the various statutory agencies does not alter this. School is important as a first defence when watching out for abuse, neglect and ill treatment of children. I don't think there can be any doubt about this for anybody who has read the full transcript. One of the teachers, for example, was actually looking closely at the children of this family when they were getting changed for PE, looking out for signs of ill treatment. If we accept that school does often, as in this case, provide a rough and ready early warning system, then it is obviously the case that this system will not be working to keep an eye on home educated children. This is worth thinking about.
Unfortunately, it was this concern about the child which also contributed to her death. Because they did not wish to abandon the child and despite the fact that their local authority accepted that she was actually being home educated, the school kept Khyra on roll. They thought that this might at least give them a stake in her welfare. This was a tragic, but well meant mistake. Because she was on the school roll, social services, misunderstanding the muddled state of current law, assumed that responsibility for Khyra Ishaq' welfare rested with the Education Welfare Service. The school and some local authority officers thought that because she was no longer at school, social services would take over responsibility for the child.
This situation could only arise because of the confused and muddled state of the law surrounding home education. It is high time indeed that every legal aspect of home education is brought together in one piece of legislation. Then everybody, parents, local authority officers and other professionals alike, will know precisely where they stand.
"He has ceased to attend the school and the proprietor has received written notification from the parent that the pupil is receiving education otherwise than at school ."
The local authority in Birmingham took her verbal assurance, rather than insist on a letter. This in turn led to the fatal confusion which cost Khyra Ishaq her life; a confusion which could not have arisen if there was one clear and unambiguous set of laws covering home education in this country.
The law surrounding home education in this country is, to put it bluntly, a mess; a confusing hodgepodge of Statute and Case law so jumbled up that even legal staff in many local authorities cannot work out which department is responsible for which aspect of home education.
The basic law relating to home education is to be found in Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act. This states that;
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable -
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."
To work out what is meant by "efficient" , "suitable" and "full-time", it is necessary to delve into various old Case law dating back a century or so; Bevan v Shears 1911, R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Talmud Torah Machzeikei Hadass School Trust, 1985, Phillips versus Brown in 1980 and Harrison & Harrison versus Stephenson in 1981, together with half a dozen others. In addition to this, attention must be paid to the Education Act 1981 and also the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 2006. This isn't all. Local authorities have responsibilities beyond the purely educational as far as children living in their area are concerned. They have a duty to see that all the children in its area are safe, well and have access to the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters document. These outcomes, which are legally underpinned by the Children Act are to be healthy, to stay safe, to enjoy and achieve, to make a positive contribution and to achieve economic wellbeing. Local authorities have yet another duty which has brought them into conflict with some home educators. An amendment to the Education Act 1996, Section 436A, laid upon all local authorities a duty to identify children missing from education. Section 437 then goes on to specify that home educated children receiving a suitable education are not to be regarded as being missing from education. So local authorities must seek out children who are not receiving a suitable education, but at the same time must not bother home educating parents who are providing their children with a suitable education.
As things stand, deregistering a child from school is a very simple process which can be and sometime is undertaken on the spur of the moment. Under proposed new legislation, this would no longer be the case. Taking a child out of school would become a formal and pretty serious business. A plan of education would be needed, as well as visits and interviews; no nonsense about just saying something to a teacher and then refusing to engage with the local authority or not answering the door. The very fact that removing her children from school could be done in such a casual fashion was a precipitating factor in the circumstances which led ultimately to Khyra Ishaq's death.
The first thing to strike the impartial reader about this case is that the school seemed to be the only agency which comes out of the business with any credit. They spotted that things were badly wrong, visited the home themselves and did everything in their power to notify other concerned parties of their concerns. Reading the full account of last years court case of the care proceedings shows that the school were on the ball from the very beginning.
This fact has a number of implications when we are considering whether or not schools provide an extra layer of protection for vulnerable children. It is evident that in this case at least, that is precisely what the school did. The fact that Birmingham social services screwed up subsequently and the child became misplaced between the various statutory agencies does not alter this. School is important as a first defence when watching out for abuse, neglect and ill treatment of children. I don't think there can be any doubt about this for anybody who has read the full transcript. One of the teachers, for example, was actually looking closely at the children of this family when they were getting changed for PE, looking out for signs of ill treatment. If we accept that school does often, as in this case, provide a rough and ready early warning system, then it is obviously the case that this system will not be working to keep an eye on home educated children. This is worth thinking about.
Unfortunately, it was this concern about the child which also contributed to her death. Because they did not wish to abandon the child and despite the fact that their local authority accepted that she was actually being home educated, the school kept Khyra on roll. They thought that this might at least give them a stake in her welfare. This was a tragic, but well meant mistake. Because she was on the school roll, social services, misunderstanding the muddled state of current law, assumed that responsibility for Khyra Ishaq' welfare rested with the Education Welfare Service. The school and some local authority officers thought that because she was no longer at school, social services would take over responsibility for the child.
This situation could only arise because of the confused and muddled state of the law surrounding home education. It is high time indeed that every legal aspect of home education is brought together in one piece of legislation. Then everybody, parents, local authority officers and other professionals alike, will know precisely where they stand.
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.
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.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Possible drawbacks of the current system for regulating home education
I have been reading some of the comments made on my piece yesterday about Khyra Ishaq. I honestly can't decide whether people are being deliberately obtuse or if they do see the problems but are just pretending not to understand why some of us are concerned. Let's look at how things work at the moment and see if the arrangements for home education now could perhaps be improved.
All that is needed as things stand, to take a child out of school legally and permanently is to drop a line to the school telling them what you are doing. That's it. One can then refuse all access to one's child to pretty well anybody. If you want, you could keep the kid locked up in the house and out of anybody's sight for six months or so. Of course, very few home educators actually do this. My own daughter was seen out and about far more than children who were at school; we were very well known to everybody locally. I suspect that this is the case with many home educated children and their parents. All the same, it would have been possible to keep the child locked in the house and refuse to let anybody see her if that was what I had wanted. This is worrying.
People yesterday said that local authorities have many powers which they don't use. It's not really as easy as that though. When a parent simply refuses to open the door or let anybody speak to their child, there is precious little that can be done. Of course, if a social worker believes that the child is in danger, then an Emergency Protection Order can be obtained from the courts. These are not issued lightly. The court would want a good deal more evidence than, "I have not seen the kid and wondered how he is keeping". They would require actual evidence of danger and potential harm. If you have not been allowed in the house and cannot see the child, how would you establish this to a magistrate's satisfaction? Because handing a social worker one of these orders with a warrant attached, means that she will soon be accompanying a squad of police who will be breaking down the door of somebody's home to gain access to their children. I'm sure none of us would want courts to dish out such powers just because a parent was not co-operating with their local authority, now would we?
Even without officially deregistering a child from school, it is quite possible to take her out for weeks or months without anything much happening to you. After a long time, the local authority might get tough and threaten you with an SAO, but this would typically take months.
Something that I found a little surprising yesterday was that many of those commenting seemed to think that schools should act quickly and decisively when a child is withdrawn. It is true that this would prevent those very rare cases like Khyra Ishaq where a child was in danger, but it would also cause a lot of problems for those whose children were, for example, simply school refusers. This is the essential problem. How do we devise a system which will catch evil parents who have taken their children out of school in order to harm them, without inconveniencing the great majority of parents who are having trouble with their children or are intending to educate them at home?
The fact is that it is only in the last fifteen or twenty years that ordinary parents have become aware that they can take their children out of school legally. The perception used to be that school was compulsory. Any mother like that of Khyra Ishaq's would not even have considered not sending her child to school; she would have been nervous about the possible consequences. Again, this is good for deterring wicked and cruel people, but bad for those who genuinely wish to teach their own children. It was because she was probably aware of others who had withdrawn their children from school, that Khyra Ishaq's mother felt confident in doing so.
Would the new Children, Schools and Families Bill currently being debated have made any difference in the case of Khyra Ishaq? It is certainly possible. Although she notified the school of her intention to home educate, no letter was sent until some time later. As things stand, that was all that was necessary to make the matter quite legal; a simple letter sent to the local authority or school. Let's look at the relevant part of the notorious Schedule 1 and see what would be needed there;
(a)
holding at least one meeting with the child during the
registration period;
(b)
holding at least one meeting with a parent of the child during
the registration period;
(c)
if they consider that a person other than a parent of the child
45
is primarily responsible for providing education to the child,
Children, Schools and Families BillSchedule 1 — Home education: England
42
holding at least one meeting with that person during the
registration period;
(d)
visiting, at least once in the registration period, the place (or
at least one of the places) where education is provided to the
child.
In other words, while the child was actually being starved and mistreated, this new legislation would have made it a requirement that the local authority officers met and talked to Khyra Ishaq in her own home. They would have spoken to her mother as well. Since this woman was refusing to allow anybody to enter her house and would not even answer the door, I'm guessing that something like this, rather than the sending of a letter, might have acted as a deterrent.
In short, any parent can remove a child from school at any time, for any reason. Most intend to educate their children, some wish to harm them. Others don't intend to educate them at all. Those who have other intentions beside educating their children might very well be discouraged from deregistering their child if it means a formal interview with local authority officers in their own home. (Of course it may put off some genuine home educators as well, but that is another matter.) So if Khyra Ishaq's mother had known from the beginning that deregistering her child was a serious and formal business that would entail local authority officers entering her home and asking questions, I think it quite possible that she would not have embarked upon that course of action. Whether this would have saved the little girl's life is open to question. But it is probably fair to say that event would have taken a very different course if the mother of this child had not regarded taking her child out of school as something which could be done lightly and with impunity.
All that is needed as things stand, to take a child out of school legally and permanently is to drop a line to the school telling them what you are doing. That's it. One can then refuse all access to one's child to pretty well anybody. If you want, you could keep the kid locked up in the house and out of anybody's sight for six months or so. Of course, very few home educators actually do this. My own daughter was seen out and about far more than children who were at school; we were very well known to everybody locally. I suspect that this is the case with many home educated children and their parents. All the same, it would have been possible to keep the child locked in the house and refuse to let anybody see her if that was what I had wanted. This is worrying.
People yesterday said that local authorities have many powers which they don't use. It's not really as easy as that though. When a parent simply refuses to open the door or let anybody speak to their child, there is precious little that can be done. Of course, if a social worker believes that the child is in danger, then an Emergency Protection Order can be obtained from the courts. These are not issued lightly. The court would want a good deal more evidence than, "I have not seen the kid and wondered how he is keeping". They would require actual evidence of danger and potential harm. If you have not been allowed in the house and cannot see the child, how would you establish this to a magistrate's satisfaction? Because handing a social worker one of these orders with a warrant attached, means that she will soon be accompanying a squad of police who will be breaking down the door of somebody's home to gain access to their children. I'm sure none of us would want courts to dish out such powers just because a parent was not co-operating with their local authority, now would we?
Even without officially deregistering a child from school, it is quite possible to take her out for weeks or months without anything much happening to you. After a long time, the local authority might get tough and threaten you with an SAO, but this would typically take months.
Something that I found a little surprising yesterday was that many of those commenting seemed to think that schools should act quickly and decisively when a child is withdrawn. It is true that this would prevent those very rare cases like Khyra Ishaq where a child was in danger, but it would also cause a lot of problems for those whose children were, for example, simply school refusers. This is the essential problem. How do we devise a system which will catch evil parents who have taken their children out of school in order to harm them, without inconveniencing the great majority of parents who are having trouble with their children or are intending to educate them at home?
The fact is that it is only in the last fifteen or twenty years that ordinary parents have become aware that they can take their children out of school legally. The perception used to be that school was compulsory. Any mother like that of Khyra Ishaq's would not even have considered not sending her child to school; she would have been nervous about the possible consequences. Again, this is good for deterring wicked and cruel people, but bad for those who genuinely wish to teach their own children. It was because she was probably aware of others who had withdrawn their children from school, that Khyra Ishaq's mother felt confident in doing so.
Would the new Children, Schools and Families Bill currently being debated have made any difference in the case of Khyra Ishaq? It is certainly possible. Although she notified the school of her intention to home educate, no letter was sent until some time later. As things stand, that was all that was necessary to make the matter quite legal; a simple letter sent to the local authority or school. Let's look at the relevant part of the notorious Schedule 1 and see what would be needed there;
(a)
holding at least one meeting with the child during the
registration period;
(b)
holding at least one meeting with a parent of the child during
the registration period;
(c)
if they consider that a person other than a parent of the child
45
is primarily responsible for providing education to the child,
Children, Schools and Families BillSchedule 1 — Home education: England
42
holding at least one meeting with that person during the
registration period;
(d)
visiting, at least once in the registration period, the place (or
at least one of the places) where education is provided to the
child.
In other words, while the child was actually being starved and mistreated, this new legislation would have made it a requirement that the local authority officers met and talked to Khyra Ishaq in her own home. They would have spoken to her mother as well. Since this woman was refusing to allow anybody to enter her house and would not even answer the door, I'm guessing that something like this, rather than the sending of a letter, might have acted as a deterrent.
In short, any parent can remove a child from school at any time, for any reason. Most intend to educate their children, some wish to harm them. Others don't intend to educate them at all. Those who have other intentions beside educating their children might very well be discouraged from deregistering their child if it means a formal interview with local authority officers in their own home. (Of course it may put off some genuine home educators as well, but that is another matter.) So if Khyra Ishaq's mother had known from the beginning that deregistering her child was a serious and formal business that would entail local authority officers entering her home and asking questions, I think it quite possible that she would not have embarked upon that course of action. Whether this would have saved the little girl's life is open to question. But it is probably fair to say that event would have taken a very different course if the mother of this child had not regarded taking her child out of school as something which could be done lightly and with impunity.
Friday, 29 January 2010
Khyra Ishaq and home education
Am I alone in wondering why there is no news coverage of the trial of those charged with murdering Khyra Ishaq? Normally, a horrible case of this sort would be guaranteed tabloid headlines, but in the last week or so, it has got no further than the Birmingham Mail. I can guess at a few reasons for this silence. One is that it is out in the provinces. If this hideous crime had been committed in London then I think it might be of more interest to the BBC and national press. Secondly, it involves a black family who also happen to be Muslim. This sort of thing touches upon many modern sensibilities. Since I am quite lacking in sensitivity about race, religion and so on, I thought I would outline a couple of points which have occurred to me about this case.
Just to remind readers of the circumstances behind this; Khyra Ishaq was a seven year old girl of Caribbean heritage. Her family were converts to Islam and the children were made to wear Muslim clothing to school. As result of this there was some teasing or bullying and in December 2007, the children were withdrawn from school to be educated at home. Several attempts were made to visit the family. People from the school came round, the police knocked on the door and a social worker also called. None were allowed into the house. Five months later, in May 2008, Khyra Ishaq died of infections caused by severe malnutrition; she starved to death.
While it is quite plain that Birmingham have fallen down badly on the job and not for the first time, we must not lose sight of who bears ultimate responsibility for this crime; those who starved and tortured this little girl to death. It is not hard to figure out why the local authority were not over zealous in pursuing this family and finding out what was happening to the child. Like Victoria Climbie, she was black. This means that local authority officers will pussyfoot about far more than they would if it were a white family. Nobody wants to be accused of racism! The child had been withdrawn from school, supposedly due to bullying she received for wearing a Muslim outfit. This is another of society's sacred cows. Where Islam is concerned, we must all tread carefully. (Understandable really. Upset a Muslim these days and the next thing you know you've got a crowd of bearded madmen calling for your decapitation). I strongly suspect that if this had been a white Christian family where there were welfare concerns about a very young child, a more active approach would have been adopted.
Readers will perhaps remember that the failure by Haringey Council in the Climbie affair involved a lot of "cultural sensitivity" towards those who were caring for the child. The fact that Victoria was plainly terrified of her aunt, for example, was attributed to the respect which black children traditionally have for their elders! Some of the worst failings were by officers who were themselves black. I can well imagine that as soon as people in Birmingham Council became aware that this was a black family and that there were allegations of Islamophobia being bandied about, they decided to take a very "softly, softly" approach.
How much did this have to do with home education? A bit, but probably not a great deal. Wicked people will always find a way to harm innocent children. It has happened before and it will happen again. All the safeguarding in the world will not stop a determined person from hurting a child. All the well known cases of child cruelty in recent years have involved children at school. At the same time, it must be remembered that it was because they found it so easy to deregister their children from school that the mother and partner of Khyra Ishaq were able to starve her to death in this leisurely fashion. Nobody set eyes on her for months after she was taken out of school. The parents stood on their rights to deny anybody access to their home and this is the reason why nobody noticed that the child was being starved to death. Five months is a long time for a child to be completely out of sight in this way. It would probably not have been possible to starve and torture her to death in this fashion had she still been at school.
The case of Khyra Ishaq is not a strong argument for the increased regulation of home education, but nor can the fact that her death followed deregistration from school and complete seclusion from society, be ignored entirely. Had the process of deregistration been a little more forbidding and formal, then it is quite possible that the family would not have taken this extremely serious step. As things stand, the withdrawal of a child from school in this way can be undertaken at a moments notice. This is probably not a good thing. Still, as I said above, wicked and cruel people will always find a way to hurt children. Tightening up the regulations surrounding home education might perhaps deter one or two cases like this, but they will not eradicate cruelty and neglect. These will always be with us.
Just to remind readers of the circumstances behind this; Khyra Ishaq was a seven year old girl of Caribbean heritage. Her family were converts to Islam and the children were made to wear Muslim clothing to school. As result of this there was some teasing or bullying and in December 2007, the children were withdrawn from school to be educated at home. Several attempts were made to visit the family. People from the school came round, the police knocked on the door and a social worker also called. None were allowed into the house. Five months later, in May 2008, Khyra Ishaq died of infections caused by severe malnutrition; she starved to death.
While it is quite plain that Birmingham have fallen down badly on the job and not for the first time, we must not lose sight of who bears ultimate responsibility for this crime; those who starved and tortured this little girl to death. It is not hard to figure out why the local authority were not over zealous in pursuing this family and finding out what was happening to the child. Like Victoria Climbie, she was black. This means that local authority officers will pussyfoot about far more than they would if it were a white family. Nobody wants to be accused of racism! The child had been withdrawn from school, supposedly due to bullying she received for wearing a Muslim outfit. This is another of society's sacred cows. Where Islam is concerned, we must all tread carefully. (Understandable really. Upset a Muslim these days and the next thing you know you've got a crowd of bearded madmen calling for your decapitation). I strongly suspect that if this had been a white Christian family where there were welfare concerns about a very young child, a more active approach would have been adopted.
Readers will perhaps remember that the failure by Haringey Council in the Climbie affair involved a lot of "cultural sensitivity" towards those who were caring for the child. The fact that Victoria was plainly terrified of her aunt, for example, was attributed to the respect which black children traditionally have for their elders! Some of the worst failings were by officers who were themselves black. I can well imagine that as soon as people in Birmingham Council became aware that this was a black family and that there were allegations of Islamophobia being bandied about, they decided to take a very "softly, softly" approach.
How much did this have to do with home education? A bit, but probably not a great deal. Wicked people will always find a way to harm innocent children. It has happened before and it will happen again. All the safeguarding in the world will not stop a determined person from hurting a child. All the well known cases of child cruelty in recent years have involved children at school. At the same time, it must be remembered that it was because they found it so easy to deregister their children from school that the mother and partner of Khyra Ishaq were able to starve her to death in this leisurely fashion. Nobody set eyes on her for months after she was taken out of school. The parents stood on their rights to deny anybody access to their home and this is the reason why nobody noticed that the child was being starved to death. Five months is a long time for a child to be completely out of sight in this way. It would probably not have been possible to starve and torture her to death in this fashion had she still been at school.
The case of Khyra Ishaq is not a strong argument for the increased regulation of home education, but nor can the fact that her death followed deregistration from school and complete seclusion from society, be ignored entirely. Had the process of deregistration been a little more forbidding and formal, then it is quite possible that the family would not have taken this extremely serious step. As things stand, the withdrawal of a child from school in this way can be undertaken at a moments notice. This is probably not a good thing. Still, as I said above, wicked and cruel people will always find a way to hurt children. Tightening up the regulations surrounding home education might perhaps deter one or two cases like this, but they will not eradicate cruelty and neglect. These will always be with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
