I'm a home educator. You can see what this means. Read any month.
I can say, from practical experience, that living this home ed life means opportunity and possibility. In all and any direction. Anytime, anyplace, anywhere. And to achieve this mind blowing state I'm not even smashed on Martini or high on drugs.
I'm beyond salvation to the normal, so I'll claim more. Living this life leads me to meet a more exciting diversity of people in a wider range of places, than I ever met before, in any of my former lives.
I have been a magazine writer, an advertiser, a teacher. In those rat-narrowed worlds, I could tell you train times in and out of Euston. I could tell you which hotels served the best biscuits on the press launch. Which person working in which capacity for which corporate could be relied on to give a good quote on the market for computer software. I could tell you ten different ways we could locate this printer in your product line. I could tell you the colour of my classroom walls; where the carpet moulded; which desk was engraved with what message; where Kevin sat today and how that was different, or the same, from yesterday. I could tell you what predicted grade he would reach. With revision; without it.
But as a home educator, I live in a fantastically interesting, complex, wonderfully kaleidoscope patterned world. It changes everyday. It is unpredictable. It is society. It is life.
Any home educator will tell you these things. That once you are in this world, you should be prepared for anything. We meet the widest type of people, from all society. People who open our ideas to thoughts we never had before; engage us in different beliefs, knowledges and ideologies; lead us to different perspectives and understandings.
I have met more people of more varied backgrounds than I ever did in a career. I meet people who live in housing estates and in mansions. People who are powerful and those whose jobs make them invisible. I've met the wacko, eccentric, impossible, normal, strait laced, visionary, brave. All dedicated. Sometimes, none of us have anything in common, except for the fact that we home educate. We inhabit this space now, to take part in the workshop, building this space rocket, all with our children, building their lives. The bizarre and the beautiful.
Home educators will tell you freely, too, about the communities they inhabit. I am more deeply involved in this society, more aware of my surroundings, my localities, than any job prospect ever offered. We hire your halls, use your local shops, build relationships, occupy public spaces, educate the press, tell schools what we want, forge new ways of working with staff at every level in every public service around you. I have made this place I inhabit. I have a right to be here: home educator.
In this home education world, I meet many women, too. Not one of them is weak willed, ignorant of the law, unaware of their responsibilities, or distracted from what they see is the reason why they choose what they do. The education of their children, the health of their family, the fulfilment of a lifestyle. I feel fortunate to meet these women. They are strong, intelligent, independent. They do not accept social values uncritically. They demand answers to the most dangerous question of all: why.
Everything that I have described here, this vibrant, exciting home education life, is the complete opposite to the world many people will read of this week.
If you are the reader of this, you are invited to believe that Khyra's world is how the home education world works.
It's easy to press on us the perils ahead for the school removed child. It plays to our anxieties of neglected, hidden children. Excluded, locked away, forbidden. It's easy. As a culture we can call on all our narratives of lost and lonely children. Their helpless faces, pleading, frighten us in our nightmares. We peer at windows, and imagine the worst; how it could happen. Here. There. Anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
But Khyra's mother was not a home educator. Khyra never experienced the life that is home education. She never took part in it. She was not home educated. She did not come into our world.
The agencies - those who were responsible for supporting Khyra - call upon home education often. It deflects attention from their failings.
The journalists - those who write quick copy to sell newspapers - explore home education from their simple angle. They draw the image of the child locked away from all society, all resource, all everything. Dead flower. It is a straightforward, easy to consume idea, and it makes for a good story.
These people do that today. They casually use these words - home education - as if Khyra's world means my world. As if our worlds are interchangeable. Then those words draw me, together, with Khyra's mother. They draw my strong limbed, life-filled children towards a squalid bedroom and a locked kitchen door.
The words sound the same. That's all. They sound the same. But their meaning makes us worlds apart. Worlds apart.
Showing posts with label Khyra Ishaq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Khyra Ishaq. Show all posts
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Friday, 26 February 2010
Another question the BBC didn't ask
Against my will, I have spent some time today reading this.
I want to know why, in January and February 2008, Mr H and other social and care professionals - employees of the state - did not use existing child protection procedures to help the children of Angela Gordon.
I want to know why he, and other people involved with this case, did not use the system that is created to protect children like Khyra and her siblings. These people, the paid employees of Birmingham, were faced with a year's amount of evidence from teachers and medical staff that Angela Gordon's children were being abused. That information was collated from their time in school.
Why did Mr H and other workers not use the information provided by the school?
Those people - working for local government - already had, available to them, evidence from medical staff and teaching staff who observed the weight, nutrition and hunger issues of the children. They had evidence from staff at the school who met with the mother on several occasions and reported that her behaviour was bizarre, unreasonable, aggressive and confrontational. They had evidence of the abusive circumstances, logged for one year, from January 2007 to December 2007. They had that evidence.
Long before Angela Gordon withdrew her children from school, this was a child protection issue. The abuse was suspected. The channels to save her were there. The system was in place.
Mr H and other key staff ignored the overwhelming evidence of abuse. Mr H had evidence of unsuitable parents, known to social services, behaving irresponsibly for bad reasons, and yet he claims he was happy with parental provision. According to the judgment records, he was himself responsible for the actions which led directly to school deregistration.
Deregistration was not then, in effect, the action of the mother, but of the Local Authority themselves. This would explain why Birmingham council has failed to provide any letter from Gordon. There simply isn't one. Birmingham themselves took the decision to remove Khyra from the school roll.
The council in effect, created the situation of failure in the child protection system.
If those 'professionals' could not exercise correct judgment in the face of all this evidence, already collated, together with all the evidence, reports and observations of the teaching professionals at school, how can any further legislation help these people make the right decision?
All social and care workers working for Birmingham already had enough evidence, collected at school.
It is simply wrong to blame either the school or home education legislation for a failure in decision making and action that clearly lies with the Birmingham authority.
I am simply bewildered that the BBC chooses to ignore this. And I am incredulous that, faced with this evidence, the government can claim they only lack the legislation to enter the house to secure a child's protection.
For Khyra Ishaq, there were people already looking, they were already seeing, and they acted as if they were blind.
I want to know why, in January and February 2008, Mr H and other social and care professionals - employees of the state - did not use existing child protection procedures to help the children of Angela Gordon.
I want to know why he, and other people involved with this case, did not use the system that is created to protect children like Khyra and her siblings. These people, the paid employees of Birmingham, were faced with a year's amount of evidence from teachers and medical staff that Angela Gordon's children were being abused. That information was collated from their time in school.
Why did Mr H and other workers not use the information provided by the school?
Those people - working for local government - already had, available to them, evidence from medical staff and teaching staff who observed the weight, nutrition and hunger issues of the children. They had evidence from staff at the school who met with the mother on several occasions and reported that her behaviour was bizarre, unreasonable, aggressive and confrontational. They had evidence of the abusive circumstances, logged for one year, from January 2007 to December 2007. They had that evidence.
Long before Angela Gordon withdrew her children from school, this was a child protection issue. The abuse was suspected. The channels to save her were there. The system was in place.
Mr H and other key staff ignored the overwhelming evidence of abuse. Mr H had evidence of unsuitable parents, known to social services, behaving irresponsibly for bad reasons, and yet he claims he was happy with parental provision. According to the judgment records, he was himself responsible for the actions which led directly to school deregistration.
Deregistration was not then, in effect, the action of the mother, but of the Local Authority themselves. This would explain why Birmingham council has failed to provide any letter from Gordon. There simply isn't one. Birmingham themselves took the decision to remove Khyra from the school roll.
The council in effect, created the situation of failure in the child protection system.
If those 'professionals' could not exercise correct judgment in the face of all this evidence, already collated, together with all the evidence, reports and observations of the teaching professionals at school, how can any further legislation help these people make the right decision?
All social and care workers working for Birmingham already had enough evidence, collected at school.
It is simply wrong to blame either the school or home education legislation for a failure in decision making and action that clearly lies with the Birmingham authority.
I am simply bewildered that the BBC chooses to ignore this. And I am incredulous that, faced with this evidence, the government can claim they only lack the legislation to enter the house to secure a child's protection.
For Khyra Ishaq, there were people already looking, they were already seeing, and they acted as if they were blind.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
The consequence of the Khyra Ishaq case
Home educators predicted this.
My heart aches for Khyra Ishaq and what she suffered. I have cried for this child and held my own children close.
What can I tell you, who read and listen to the BBC, that no deregistration letter from the school or council yet supports the assertion that Khyra was home educated? Indeed without confirmation, there remains discussion whether she was actually on the school roll and the truancy team ineffective.
In a way, Khyra's educational status remains not the key issue, because Birmingham social services already knew about Khyra Ishaq. They already had powers to act. Despite this, the story is being used to justify legislative change.
Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board say agencies were hampered because they could not gain entry to the house. Ed Balls says this will change.
Please bear in mind that this legislation will not be used solely for us, home educators. I feel sure that the law will apply equally to all households where there are children, and can be used against any who are subject to red flags or who do not maintain certain levels of school attendance.
Right now, you might say that is a good thing, and 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear', in which case, inspectors will be welcome into your home.
I would appeal to any of you who have read so far that you please reserve judgement against home educators, that you do not condemn our lifestyle, that you respect us as parents, and that you can think away from the emotional aspect of this case.
I am finding it hard to do that myself at the moment. Yet I know that the government is cynical and manipulative enough to use an emotional response to effect profound changes in our privacy and civil liberties.
My heart aches for Khyra Ishaq and what she suffered. I have cried for this child and held my own children close.
What can I tell you, who read and listen to the BBC, that no deregistration letter from the school or council yet supports the assertion that Khyra was home educated? Indeed without confirmation, there remains discussion whether she was actually on the school roll and the truancy team ineffective.
In a way, Khyra's educational status remains not the key issue, because Birmingham social services already knew about Khyra Ishaq. They already had powers to act. Despite this, the story is being used to justify legislative change.
Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board say agencies were hampered because they could not gain entry to the house. Ed Balls says this will change.
Please bear in mind that this legislation will not be used solely for us, home educators. I feel sure that the law will apply equally to all households where there are children, and can be used against any who are subject to red flags or who do not maintain certain levels of school attendance.
Right now, you might say that is a good thing, and 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear', in which case, inspectors will be welcome into your home.
I would appeal to any of you who have read so far that you please reserve judgement against home educators, that you do not condemn our lifestyle, that you respect us as parents, and that you can think away from the emotional aspect of this case.
I am finding it hard to do that myself at the moment. Yet I know that the government is cynical and manipulative enough to use an emotional response to effect profound changes in our privacy and civil liberties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
