‘The report’ on Radio 4 was broadcast on Thursday 20th. December 2012, it is well worth a listen.
Following the row over Rotherham council’s decision to remove three foster children from a couple because of their support for UKIP, Simon Cox investigates concerns about the high number of Roma children being taken into care.
Here is the links:
Article:
Roma children: Britain’s hidden care problem
By Simon Cox
BBC Radio 4’s The Report
Download (13MB) audio.
There were two new tick boxes in the 2011 Census: Gypsy or Irish Traveller, and Arab. Gypsy or Irish Travellers accounted for 58,000 usual residents (0.1 per cent of the population), making it the smallest ethnic category (with a tick box) in 2011. The highest proportion of people who identified as Gypsy or Irish Traveller were found in the South East and East of England with Basildon, Maidstone, Swale, Fenland and Ashford all at 0.5 per cent.
This is the first census to have included the tick box and there was a campaign before the census to make the communities aware of the change but the figure is significantly lower than previous estimates suggesting that many families were either excluded from the census or chose the more neutral British or Irish identifications. It is unlikely that Roma families would have ticked this box, regarding the term Gypsy as racist and not considering themselves to be Travellers. It also only covers England and Wales.
An interactive map is available for users to explore all ethnic groups further at the local authority level. https://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/interactive/census-map-2-1—ethnicity/index.html
Under section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996 (EA 1996), a parent commits an offence if they fail to ensure their child’s regular attendance at a school where the child is registered. Under section 444(1A) EA 1996, a parent commits a further offence where the circumstances in section 444(1) apply and the parent knows that the child fails to attend regularly at the school and fails to cause the child to attend.
However, this legislation sets out defences to these offences. In particular, section 444(6) EA 1996, gives parents a defence in which they cannot be found guilty of a school attendance offence, provided that the child is of no fixed abode and:
(a) parents are engaged in a trade or business of such a nature as to require them to travel from place to place, and
(b) the child has attended at a school as a registered pupil as regularly as the nature of that trade or business permits, and
(c) if the child has attained the age of six, that he or she has made at least 200 attendances during the period of 12 months ending with the date on which the proceedings were instituted.
Under s444 of the Education Act 1996 economically nomadic families can defend themselves against a prosecution for their children’s non-attendance in school by showing:
In April last year the Government published “Progress report by the ministerial working group on tackling inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers” which announced in Commitment 3 their intention ” to look again at the impact of this legislation and to consult on whether it should be repealed.”
The consultation period runs till 22nd February 2013.
ACERT will make public its submission opposing repeal on the website and we encourage all members and visitors to this to make their own responses to the consultation request.
Currently, people whose travelling pattern has a fixed base, can negotiate with schools to keep them on roll and provide distance learning packages to support their education. Support for Distance Learning has been undermined by:
The repeal of s444 would add another nail to the coffin, and remove another element of the flexibility which all research has shown is the key to improving the outcomes of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. Poor attendance by these children is a serious problem, but there is no research evidence to suggest that s444 might be a cause.
Circus families in London were told recently that it was not possible to admit their children to school for two weeks, even though this is what they have done for years. The central admissions system which operates in many areas can delay admission by several weeks; are parents going to be prosecuted for non-attendance even though there is no school place available to them? Will it be simpler for such families to opt to Home Educate their children, rather than face prosecution, and would the Government regard this as successful outcome?
Finally ACERT must ask “Why is the Government proposing this change?” On the face of it, they wish to improve the attendance of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils and have entitled their consultation paper “Improving educational outcomes for children of travelling families.” We believe it may be part of a campaign in the run up to the next election to prove to core Conservative voters that they are prepared to get tough with groups who are unfairly privileged by the existing law. We also believe that it may force families who have a nomadic way of earning a living into opting for Home Education; if they do so we can expect to see an improvement in the attendance statistics.
We have made clear that we are not satisfied with the delivery of Commitments 1 and 5 (inclusion of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in the OFSTED framework and the thematic review of prejudiced bullying) and the jury is out on most of the others.
For our part ACERT will seek to defend the right to a nomadic way of life, and focus our attention on supporting the education of nomadic children through distance-learning and/or dual registration. We will also argue for flexibility in admissions systems to enable mobile children to be admitted for short periods of time.
https://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/departmentalinformation/consultations/submit
